Foreign policy debate

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker, honoured members of the diplomatic corps and honoured members of Parliament! Initially, I wish to convey the government's deepest condolences to all those, also here in Sweden, who have lost loved ones in the catastrophe caused by the earthquake in Turkey and Syria. It is a great tragedy where the loss of human lives is enormous.

Foreign policy debate

The government's message to Turkey has been clear: We are doing everything we can to help. Swedish rescue workers have searched for survivors on site. Extra humanitarian funds have been released for both Syria and Turkey. As EU chair, we have, together with the EU Commission, taken the initiative for a donor conference.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is in a new era. It cannot be described in any other way. The rumble of large-scale war is heard again in Europe, and we are undergoing the greatest reassessment of our foreign policy since we became members of the European Union.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine demonstrates a boundless contempt for international law and the European security order and for the most fundamental rules of the UN Charter.

We must therefore be clear-sighted: It is not only Ukraine's freedom that is at stake, but also our freedom here in Sweden.

Russia's goal is to replace the European security order and bring us back to a time where violence takes precedence over right.

President Zelenskyy is absolutely right when he says that his soldiers are not only fighting for Ukraine's survival, but also for our security and our values.

Given this, Sweden is now changing course in its overall foreign, security, and defense policy. The government will primarily pursue a Swedish and European foreign policy, where Swedish interests and democratic values are at the core of the policy.

It is with great humility and great seriousness that I, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, stand here today in the Swedish Riksdag and present this government's first foreign policy declaration.

Mr. Speaker! Ukraine's fate is ours. The attack affects the stability in our immediate vicinity to a great extent. It concerns Sweden and the entire global security situation.

Our support for Ukraine is therefore extensive. Not since the Finnish Winter War has Sweden assisted a country in armed conflict with war materiel in the way that we now support Ukraine.

Since Russia's large-scale invasion in February last year, Swedish support to Ukraine has totaled over 14 billion kronor. Sweden has provided Ukraine with military support and advanced weapons, with humanitarian and financial support, with support for civil crisis management, reconstruction and reforms, and with support for free media, cybersecurity, and accountability. No future support can be ruled out.

Sweden shall be a strong partner to Ukraine even in the reconstruction of the country. Already this year, Ukraine can be assumed to become the largest recipient of Swedish bilateral aid. Sweden stands and will continue to stand on Ukraine's side for as long as it is needed.

Mr. Speaker! The total support from the EU to Ukraine amounts to over 50 billion euros. Together, the EU's member states have adopted the most powerful and far-reaching sanctions ever to help Ukraine win the war.

As President of the Council of the European Union, one of our most important tasks is to maintain unity among the EU member states, continue to provide support to Ukraine, and introduce further sanctions against Russia and against Belarus.

Sweden and the EU are driving for accountability for crimes committed during Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Those responsible must be prosecuted and receive their punishments. We support the establishment of a tribunal for the crime of aggression and welcome that an international center for prosecution is established. Sweden also works for accountability through the International Criminal Court, the UN Human Rights Council, and OSCE.

Ukraine's path towards EU membership has strong Swedish support. Despite the war, Ukraine is working ambitiously and at an impressive pace with necessary reforms. During the spring and under our presidency, Ukraine will receive feedback on the reforms that constitute an important step on the way towards a future EU membership. Ukraine belongs in the EU.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! Our upcoming membership in Nato signifies a new Swedish foreign and security policy identity. We become an ally and enter into mutually binding defense obligations.

The Government intends to submit the bill on Sweden's membership in Nato to the Riksdag in March. The strong support in the Riksdag and in public opinion for Sweden's application is a strength for our country. We also have very strong support within the Nato circle, which is manifested, among other things, through security assurances from a large number of Nato countries.

We have come far in the process; so far, 28 of 30 member states have ratified Sweden's accession. Only Turkey and Hungary remain. Sweden has delivered results on all parts of the tripartite agreement with Turkey and Finland, and we continue to implement it. The Government will continue to strive for a broad parliamentary anchoring of the new security policy stance - not least through the Defence Preparation Board.

Through membership in Nato, we strengthen our security policy influence and our contribution to security and stability in the entire Euro-Atlantic area. As a Nato member, Sweden will fulfill its obligations according to the North Atlantic Treaty and towards all other allies. Sweden will be an ally to rely on.

We have unique competencies to contribute. One example is Swedish technology, which will become a valuable asset for the allied countries' development of military capabilities. Sweden and France are the only two EU countries that have the capability to launch satellites. We are a leading space nation and will continue to lead the way in the field.

Sweden is clearly committed to the fight against terrorism - and will be even as a NATO member.

In line with Norway and Denmark in their time, Sweden joins Nato without formal reservations. But we see just as little as the other Nordic countries that it is relevant to have nuclear weapons on our own territory in peacetime. Sweden continues to be engaged in arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation.

As part of this, we will continue to actively participate in the Stockholm Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament. Furthermore, the norm against the use of chemical and biological weapons must be upheld. The conditions for Sweden's strategic work with security issues are also strengthened through the National Security Council, which the government has established.

Sweden becomes stronger with Nato, and Nato becomes stronger with Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! It is no secret that this government will have a clear focus on the Swedish immediate vicinity given the new security situation. It begins with our closest partner - Finland. With Finland, we are geographically, historically and culturally intertwined. And our relationship is further deepened through Sweden's and Finland's membership in Nato.

The Nordic family belongs to some of the oldest and most extensive regional collaborations in the world. Seen as a whole, the Nordic region could not only join the G20, but also the G10. We are leading when it comes to economic freedom, innovation, and competitiveness.

The government will prepare ambitious presidencies next year for both the Nordic Council and the so-called N5 – where the Nordic countries are included – and for NB8, which also includes Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This gives us good conditions to strengthen our Nordic-Baltic ties.

Sweden will continue the work to realize the vision of the Nordic region as the world's most sustainable and integrated region by 2030.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall continue to be a proactive and constructive partner in the EU cooperation. We shall dare to lead, form coalitions with like-minded parties, and clearly stand up for the values we believe in and which benefit Sweden and Europe. This government will seize the great opportunities that our EU membership provides and look beyond the presidency.

When threats grow, we Europeans need to act together. Therefore, it is important that Sweden has a close relationship with all member states. When the EU's 27 members stand united, we gain great weight and can make a difference.

In addition to strengthening Ukraine's and Europe's security, our priorities during the EU presidency are to sharpen the EU's competitiveness and push forward for an ambitious European climate policy. We stand guard over liberal democracy and a functioning rule of law.

If we look out, we see how the European states have been brought closer together and that we are more united than in a long time. And we should welcome more into our community. EU's expansion is an important tool to strengthen ties to the surrounding area and contributes to peace, stability and prosperity.

The expansion must not be unconditional. Reforms regarding fundamental rights and democracy are needed, as well as powerful measures against corruption and organized crime.

As one of the initiators of the Eastern Partnership, Sweden has a strong voice. The cooperation shall be developed and become more flexible with well-adapted forms for each individual country within the partnership.

The EU should have a forward-looking and deepened relationship with the United Kingdom, also in the area of foreign and security policy.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is pursuing and will continue to pursue an ambitious free trade agenda. Trade has built the Swedish economy and contributed to a strong brand abroad. In a free and open market, innovative and competitive companies contribute to both growth and welfare as well as to the green and digital transition.

New emerging technologies and products such as artificial intelligence, quantum computers and biotechnology will improve people's living conditions. At the same time, there are great risks. Control over new technology has geopolitical dimensions and is of importance for national and global security. Here, Sweden can play a central role as a strong research nation and as a world-class high-tech country.

An important part is the trade and technology council between the EU and the USA, TTC, where Sweden is organizing a ministerial meeting during the EU presidency. TTC is an important cooperation format to seek common transatlantic rules for technology and to manage the great power competition.

Sweden will continue to be a leader in cyber issues. To further raise the level of ambition, the government will present a strategy for cyber issues and digital issues within foreign and security policy. Through the strategy, it shall be ensured that our cyber and digitalization policy is in harmony with our security and defense policy interests and that it promotes our foreign policy values. The government will appoint a special envoy for international cyber issues.

Mr. Speaker! With a war in Europe, it is inevitable that our immediate neighborhood has the highest priority in foreign policy. But our foreign policy will always have an important global dimension.

The USA has played an indispensable role for security in Europe since the Second World War. Canada is also an important partner for Sweden and Europe. We Europeans must do more to strengthen the EU as a security policy actor, but we continue to need a strong transatlantic link.

China is the world's second-largest economy and a technological leading nation, while the country still has an authoritarian rule and growing global ambitions. We must take this into account. We embrace dialogue and cooperation where it is possible and in line with our interests and values, for example to promote trade on fair terms and to address the climate issue. In parallel, we continue, together with the rest of the EU, to point out violations of human rights.

Sweden's interests in relation to China are best served by a common European approach and transatlantic coordination. This also applies regarding Taiwan, where we want to continue our cooperation within the framework of the one-China policy. China's new tone towards Taiwan causes concern.

Mr. Speaker! We need to conduct a careful analysis of who Sweden's strategic partners are today and who they should be in the future.

Many of the countries around the Indian Ocean and the Pacific and in Latin America have for a long time been important partners in foreign and trade policy. The potential for joint development is great, not least through the opportunities that exist for Swedish companies to scale up their operations and when it comes to the green transition.

The Government hopes that the free trade agreement between the EU and New Zealand can be signed during the spring, and during the year the negotiations with Australia should be able to be brought to fruition.

The Swedish EU presidency coincides with Japan's presidency in the G7 and India's presidency in the G20, which provides further momentum to our bilateral relations.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has built its prosperity on trade. Trade is an important component for relationship building and a way out of poverty. When poverty decreases and societies can focus on something other than the most acute needs, thresholds for conflict are raised and the pressure for democratization increases. Therefore, we link aid and trade policy.

Aid shall be used to a greater extent as a lever to strengthen countries' democracy and participation in the international economy. This requires that the overall aid policy be recalibrated. The Government is increasing the ambition to make aid more focused, relevant, effective, and transparent. Goals shall be set based on quality and results.

In addition to the support for Ukraine, priority is given to poverty reduction and health interventions for the most vulnerable, humanitarian aid, democracy and human rights, strengthened climate work and initiatives for women's and girls' rights and opportunities. Core support is redirected from multilateral organizations to civil society.

The African Continental Free Trade Area AfCFTA holds great potential and lays the foundation for economic development by creating the world's largest free trade area.

Sweden will continue to be engaged in the Middle East, the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region in Africa, as well as in West Asia and South and Southeast Asia.

Regarding Israel-Palestine, Sweden will work for a two-state solution based on international law.

I also want to take the opportunity to express my and the entire government's thanks to you who have served within the framework of the Swedish contribution to the UN stabilization mission in Mali, Minusma. Even though the developments on the ground are far from having taken the turn we desired, we Swedes can be proud of the efforts that have been made.

Mr. Speaker! That women are excluded from education, from working life, or in other ways are denied the right to participate in society, as is currently the case in, among other places, Afghanistan, is a violation of their human rights. This government will pursue a strategic equality work in aid and foreign policy.

Sweden supports several equality initiatives and initiatives within SRHR, including in conflict areas where women are subjected to sexual violence, for exploitation in prostitution and for human trafficking. We have supported the establishment of centers in Ukraine and in neighboring countries where women can receive medical, legal and psychosocial support free of charge in one and the same place.

Every individual's equal value regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation or religion is a matter of freedom. Several religious minority groups such as Christians and Uyghurs all around the world are subjected to oppression.

When it comes to Iran, we from the EU's side shall exert strong political pressure so that the violent repression shall cease, for the Iranian citizens' human rights, right to protest and not to be arbitrarily imprisoned or brutally executed and for their right to life - and life in freedom.

There is also reason for concern over Iran's actions in the nuclear field and its destabilizing role in the region, as well as over the country's military cooperation with Russia.

The government acts both bilaterally and within the EU and in the UN. Within the EU, we continuously review which measures should be taken that are legally feasible and most effective, and further sanctions are to be expected.

The UN faces great challenges, and differences of opinion between countries make it difficult for the international community to act with force. Sweden will act in the UN through alliance-building, long-term perspective, and purposefulness. The Government will continue to push for effective solutions that meet the needs of global climate actions, humanitarian interventions, and sustainable development, and which safeguard peace, security, and civil and political rights.

Mr. Speaker! Gas has become a powerful geopolitical weapon, and Russia's attack on Ukraine has accelerated the transition to fossil-free energy. The green transition is necessary and contains new opportunities for employment and growth. We must take full advantage of the synergies between climate financing, trade, and innovations. The government will therefore cooperate closely with the business sector to promote exports and foreign trade, investments, and Swedish competitiveness.

The relationship between climate policy issues in a broad sense and security policy is becoming increasingly important. The Government intends to expand and streamline climate aid. The aid needs to encompass both support for climate adaptation and resilience and support for emission reductions.

Mr. Speaker! The consular mission and the work of assisting Swedes in distress is ongoing. This concerns, for example, persons who, while traveling, happen to be affected by natural disasters or major accidents, are subjected to crimes, or for various reasons are deprived of their liberty.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the evacuation effort in Afghanistan speak clearly about how important it is that we are prepared and can act quickly when needed.

The Government will, individually and together with others, continue to work to ensure that Dawit Isaak and Gui Minhai are released. The work also continues with other complicated cases of deprived Swedish citizens.

Mr. Speaker! The development of democracy is often described as a pendulum movement. With wars in our immediate vicinity and authoritarian forces sniffing the morning air, the pendulum is currently in retreat. But we will do everything we can to accelerate the comeback of democracy and freedom.

The Swedish population has shown admirable solidarity. Many have contributed through collections and donations to Ukraine. We have also strengthened our own crisis preparedness.

Sweden is also the country in the EU where the largest proportion of the population stands behind the EU's support for Ukraine - a full 97 percent. That figure clearly shows how we Swedes stand behind the democratic basic principles.

Peace and democracy are not self-evident states. They must be won by every generation and by every state, and they must be constantly defended. I can state that there are many who want to be part of this defense of freedom.

(Applause)

In this speech, David Josefsson, Oliver Rosengren and John E Weinerhall (all M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the presentation. I will comment more extensively on the declaration in my speech in a moment.

But I will initially just make a reflection in light of the news we received yesterday from Finland. Now it looks like Finland very well could precede Sweden into Nato, contrary to the plan that we have worked with for nearly a year. It is, in my opinion, in that case very serious. It would affect our military collaborations that we have built up with Finland over a very long time. It is also a failure for the Swedish government that, in that case, one has not been able to keep Sweden and Finland together in the most important security policy process for our country in 200 years. Part of this blame should also be placed on the Sweden Democrats whose agitation regarding the Quran burnings caused the Swedish Nato process to stall.

When the Foreign Minister commented on this yesterday, he brushed aside this issue by saying that this was a non-issue. I do not agree with that at all. This is not a non-issue. It is not a non-issue that the plans to join Nato together with Finland could very well fall through. It is a very serious issue. It has enormous consequences, especially as we currently do not know when Sweden could join.

My questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at this stage are: What does he mean by that this would in that case be a non-issue? Does he not understand how serious this is? And what is he going to do now to move the process forward?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! It has been obvious at all times for everyone who has followed the discussions - in connection with when we chose to submit our Letter of intent in the spring of 2022, which was done by the previous government, and up until now - that these issues concern the decisions of sovereign states. It is a Swedish decision here in the Riksdag if we want to join Nato. It is a Finnish decision in the Finnish Riksdag. And it is a Turkish decision in the Turkish parliament. Therefore, I expressed myself as I did, because it has been well known all along that we cannot control what decisions the Turkish parliament chooses to make. Sweden has no authority over that. I assume that Morgan Johansson also acknowledges this, because this with the decisions of sovereign states is a fundamental part of international law. Therefore, this is a non-issue.

Naturally, we are still working towards the goal that we, together with Finland, will be able to become members of Nato. We think it is important. Everyone naturally recognizes the great security policy significance that this has for Sweden. But we must remember that we only own parts of this process ourselves here in the Riksdag and in Sweden. We do not own the process when it comes to what other states choose to make for decisions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is a self-evident fact that every country decides for itself its security policy line. No one questions that. The problem that has arisen is that the plan that we have all agreed that we should work with and that we have worked with for almost a year now seems to be being questioned. If it were to be the case that Finland joins Nato before Sweden - we do not know how long this delay would be in that case - it will have very serious consequences. We have profound military collaborations with Finland that we have built up over a very long time, and if Finland were to be in Nato but we are not, it is clear that it will have significance.

This cannot, therefore, just be waved away as a non-issue. This is a very large and serious issue, and I urge the Swedish Foreign Minister to now take this seriously and contribute to moving this process forward so that we can bring it to completion.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! On the final point, I can point to the passage we have in the foreign policy declaration where we now clearly state that we will submit the application proposition to the Riksdag in March and thereby also take the final and important step that enables the Riksdag to make the decision that allows us, as soon as the Turkish and Hungarian parliaments have ratified this, to become members of Nato. Therefore, we do exactly what Morgan Johansson requests.

Yesterday, when the members of the Finnish Foreign Affairs Committee visited the Riksdag and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and on an official level announced that the Finnish parliament now intends to complete its processes, it was natural for us to also inform the Riksdag that we are moving forward and will officially submit this bill to the Riksdag for consideration. We are walking hand in hand with Finland just as much now as we did last spring when the previous government made the decision that we should become members of Nato and submitted its letter of intent. Nothing has changed on this point, and nothing will also change moving forward in such a way that Finland and Sweden own their processes.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Ever since Foreign Minister Tobias Billström took office, we have seen a foreign minister who has bowed down to Turkey. Together with the Prime Minister and the NATO negotiator Stenström, it has essentially been a competition over who can bend their back the most to receive an invitation in Ankara. With emphasis, they have tried to make us believe that Turkey is a democracy. But nine out of ten Swedes do not consider Turkey to be a democracy, according to a Novus survey commissioned by SVT, which aligns better with the reality that Erdogan has created by many years ago abandoning the path of peace and dialogue in order instead to shrink democracy in Turkey day by day.

We have seen how Erdogan's narrative about demonizing Kurds has found its way into the Swedish government and in the NATO process. Ann Linde wrote an agreement about it, and Billström has promised to fulfill it. There has been distancing, a high tone, and sham executions. When that didn't work, the otherwise so shadow-shy NATO negotiator Stenström was sent out into the media with the test balloon that it is about gang crime.

Many of us raised our eyebrows. Now it has turned out that nothing was true. No authority has evidence of the connection between the Kurdish movement and gang crime. The question now is whether the government takes its talking points from Ankara.

It is a smear campaign against Kurds that recurs and that many Kurds remember. At the murder of Olof Palme, the Kurds were smeared, oppressed, and arrested, and nothing was true. It turned out in 2020 that Olof Palme was likely murdered by a gun-happy suburban moderate.

The question is what price the Kurds will have to pay this time for Sweden to join Nato, or rather for the debacle that the government is driving when it comes to the Nato process.

Why is the government lying about Turkey being a democracy? And why are you defaming the Kurdish people?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Is it not true that the PKK is a terrorist organization that indiscriminately kills men, women, and children to promote its political interests? Is it not correct that it is classified as a terrorist organization both in Sweden and in the EU? Is this not true, Håkan Svenneling? At what point has the government acted with falsehood in this regard? And at what point, with reference to what is stated in the memorandum that the previous government signed and which we are fulfilling, is this incorrect?

Regarding the question of Turkey and Turkey's democratic status, it is obvious that Turkey is a democracy, albeit with challenges. Naturally, it is so. They have general elections, and they have an opposition. In the last days and weeks, we have discussed a lot about the situation in Turkey. We think it is important from the government's side to emphasize this. Naturally, we follow the developments in Turkey regarding human rights and respect for them, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law.

But Turkey is, therefore, a country that has popular government with general elections where there are principles and where there are parties that the people can vote for in a democratic manner.

It is also the case that democracy can be measured in different ways. This is also well known both as a method and as a goal. Naturally, the degree of democracy can also vary based on these methods and goals and how they are fulfilled in a country. This is also well known.

I see no problem with us having this debate and that we can hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! When I hear the Foreign Minister's defense, I understand why I reported him to the KU for his statements regarding Turkey. They really need to be scrutinized.

The Foreign Minister is now stuck in the mud, and there he remains stuck. He has failed in what his Prime Minister has pointed out as the most important task.

The problem for the rest of us is that he is playing with Sweden's security. I want to remind everyone of what I raised at the press conference on May 13, namely the question of what it means to enter into a military alliance with Hungary and Turkey, where democracy has shrunk for a long time.

A Swedish Foreign Minister must not participate as Erdogan's campaign worker in the Turkish election campaign. Now there must be an end to the policy of concessions. To present the NATO proposal in March is to give Erdogan more power. He can now drive a wedge between Sweden and Finland.

Sweden should return to what is a Swedish hallmark: credible diplomacy. Show calm, and show stability - for Sweden's best!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Håkan Svenneling's warm words about our Nato membership must be put into relation to the fact that Vänsterpartiet does not want us to become members of Nato. That is, of course, the big question that Håkan Svenneling should ask himself.

It is, however, no secret that Vänsterpartiet has problems handling foreign and security policy issues. We all remember the debacle that occurred in the chamber last spring when we were to decide on delivering weapons to a fighting Ukraine. The only party that could not gather its own parliamentary group into a position was Vänsterpartiet. We remember how people scrambled in a panic to avoid sitting here in the chamber and pressing the button. That, Håkan Svenneling, we shall remember in the future – when we have become NATO members.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! There is much in the foreign policy declaration that the Foreign Minister read out which we can agree with. I would, however, have expected that we, as the chair of the EU, would have retained the very clear stance that has long prevailed, Mr. Speaker: that the EU is Sweden's most important foreign policy arena. I miss precisely that clarity in the declaration.

However, I am very pleased to be able to read that the government intends to submit a proposition to the Riksdag regarding the ratification of our NATO membership in March, Mr. Speaker. That means we can actually move forward, together with Finland, with the aim of being NATO members before the meeting in Vilnius. I strongly welcome that.

I also welcome the clarity regarding Ukraine belonging in the EU, but I miss Moldova and also Georgia.

I welcome promises of tougher sanctions against Russia and Belarus, but I lack the will to push for the EU to tighten the global Magnitsky sanctions during our presidency regarding systematic money laundering and corruption.

I also miss the will to push for designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization during our chairmanship. That would have been welcome. Likewise, tougher sanctions against those responsible for the abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang would have been welcome.

I welcome the desire to assert free trade, Mr. Speaker, but I would have liked to have seen signals that the government is prepared to push for the EU to open up for a free trade agreement with Taiwan. It is important, and it would be valuable if we could take those steps.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Something tells me that the foreign policy declaration could have been twice as long if I had included everything that everyone in the chamber considers important.

The government has made a selection, and that selection must, naturally, be put into relation to the serious security policy situation we find ourselves in. We must prioritize what is most important, and that is, among other reasons, why the NATO section is very long. It is also, among other reasons, why the section on cyber diplomacy is very long in the foreign policy declaration.

I would, however, like to emphasize that the EU's fundamental role as a platform for promoting Sweden's security and foreign policy interests is nevertheless mentioned on several occasions in the foreign policy declaration. We mention the European Union where it is appropriate to do so. I also want to emphasize that the government on several occasions since I became Foreign Minister has mentioned the Nordic countries, the Baltics, and the EU as our three most important arenas. Kerstin Lundgren can therefore feel secure on that point; no changes whatsoever are being made here from our side, but rather we consider this to be important and significant.

Regarding the remaining points in the list, I want to say that we point out the fact that there is a persecution of Uyghurs as a group around the world. We do this deliberately as we, from the government's side, make the assessment that it is necessary. But there naturally also remains more to be done on a number of the points that Kerstin Lundgren mentions. We have more foreign declarations ahead of us during this mandate period, so I ask to be allowed to return.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is, of course, natural that a foreign policy declaration cannot contain everything and that it is a matter of prioritizing. But Sweden has for a long time, in broad agreement, been clear that the EU is Sweden's most important foreign policy arena, and that precisely that is missing when we are the EU presidency country is a bit surprising to me. I have, however, in several foreign policy debates asked the Sweden Democrats, and for that matter also the Left Party, if they see the EU as the most important foreign policy arena, Mr. Speaker - and in all cases the answer has been negative. Perhaps there is a connection to that.

Mr. Speaker! As has been said, there is much that is positive in the declaration, for example the question of the Stockholm Initiative. I would, however, wish that we in Sweden were also prepared to be more leading than merely active as participants.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! The foreign policy declaration has been prepared by the three parties that make up the government, in accordance with how we work in Sweden regarding the form of government. It is the government that designs the foreign policy.

I maintain what I said earlier: We mention the European Union so clearly in so many places in the declaration that it cannot escape anyone what emphasis and importance we place on that institution when it comes to promoting our foreign and security policy interests. On that point, no change has occurred. If a change has occurred, it is rather in the direction that this is highlighted more, not less.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the foreign policy declaration.

With this foreign policy declaration, the government has buried the feminist foreign policy and transformed aid into a matter of selling out democratic values to the highest bidder. It is embarrassing.

On August 15, 2021, the Taliban took power in Afghanistan. More than a year later, women are barred from universities. No girls are allowed to receive an education, and women are not allowed to work in the public sector. Today, two-thirds of the Afghan population are in need of humanitarian aid to survive.

The feminist foreign policy is not empty words or fine labels. It means that Sweden in word and deed takes the side of Afghan women against a brutal Taliban regime. Today, Tobias Billström's Ministry for Foreign Affairs does not want to be seen with the feminist foreign policy that has been a clearly directed compass in a restless world. It is a great betrayal of the girls and women in the world whose rights we have previously put in the first place.

Sweden has, like all the world's states, committed to working according to the UN's highly topical agenda for women, peace and security. The basis of the agenda is the knowledge that peace and security cannot be achieved without equality. A feminist foreign policy has long been Sweden's sharpest tool for highlighting a clear equality perspective in all security and peace efforts. This is relevant as much in Afghanistan as in Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

With the major investments that will be made to address the worsened security situation in the world and particularly in our immediate vicinity, how does the government intend to work to fulfill commitments regarding women's equal and meaningful participation in all decision-making processes concerning peace and security - in Ukraine and in the rest of the world?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I wonder if Jacob Risberg was listening when I read out the foreign policy declaration, because there is a long section that clearly and distinctly states exactly what the government thinks on these issues. There, we develop our fundamental view: that it is a violation of human rights to exclude women from education and work life or otherwise deny them the right to participate in society. Afghanistan is an excellent example of this, just as Jacob Risberg himself highlights.

We note that this government will conduct strategic gender equality work in the aid policy and the foreign policy. A concrete example of this is the fact that we are already providing support for several gender equality initiatives that are already ongoing. We have also supported the establishment of a center in Ukraine that makes it possible for women who have had their rights violated - in many cases in the most horrific way, namely by being raped - to receive free medical, legal, and psychosocial support.

This is a clear expression of the Swedish foreign policy's ambition to always uphold that equality is a core value for Sweden as a state. We will continue to do so. That we skip labels and no longer use them does not diminish or change the fundamental principle that this government works towards. That principle is, of course, that every individual's equal value, regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation or religion, is always a matter of freedom.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The government's policy is a setback for Swedish foreign and development policy and a clear departure from the values that were upheld when Sweden pursued a feminist foreign policy.

In this acute situation, the equality agenda, which is a matter of concern for all people, must be the starting point for all parts of foreign policy. This must be done systematically at all levels and in all policy areas, including aid, diplomatic relations, climate work, foreign trade, and not least security policy, which requires strong leadership and resources as well as that clear goals are set and clear priorities are made.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe I can convince Jacob Risberg. It is also part of the opposition's role to criticize the government. I must nevertheless say that the person who reads the foreign declaration will find the exact opposite of what Jacob Risberg just laid out the text about.

We believe that equality policy is important, and we believe it is relevant to highlight this in situations where it can actually make a difference for individual people. It is something completely different to agree with a label that says foreign policy should be feminist when the discussion is rather about the label on the bottle than the content.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! This foreign policy debate takes place in the shadow of two immense human catastrophes.

One is last week's horrific earthquake in Turkey and Syria. More news about its deadly extent reaches the rest of the world day by day. It appears to be one of the worst natural disasters in this part of the world in 100 years. The death toll rises with each passing day - as many as 50,000 have died, may have died, or may come to die directly from the earthquake, buried under the rubble, or from cold, injuries, diseases, and other hardships as a direct consequence of the catastrophe. Of these 50,000 people, perhaps a third are children. Yesterday we heard that 26 million people are in need of humanitarian aid.

Our thoughts go out to those who have perished and to all those who are fighting for their lives and for their loved ones.

We Social Democrats welcome the efforts that Sweden is making through, among others, MSB and Sida to save lives and help those affected. But we are also strongly critical that the government has cut aid, including to UN organizations, which will make it more difficult to help in similar situations in the future. For example, Sweden has cut support to the UN's Central Emergency Response Fund.

The government must rethink here. The earthquake in Turkey and Syria is not the last humanitarian catastrophe where humanity must unite, where extensive support must be provided quickly, and where Sweden and other countries must have preparedness.

Mr. Speaker! The second major human catastrophe is, of course, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, which has now been ongoing for nearly a year.

We must be clear here: Ukraine is fighting our battle. Ukraine's struggle is a struggle for democracy, human rights, national independence, and the Ukrainian people's right to govern their own destiny without interference from foreign powers. We must not betray them.

Opposite them stands a Russia that is developing at an ever faster pace towards a fascistoid dictatorship. Freedom of speech is crushed. The democratic institutions and the courts are reduced to facades. Oppositionists are thrown into prison or assassinated, sometimes even abroad. All power is concentrated in one and the same person: Putin. He has time and again succumbed to another of the hallmarks of fascism, namely aggressive attacks against neighboring countries.

What Russia is engaged in now is nothing other than an imperialist colonial war. They want to bring Ukraine under their control, even at the cost of bombing the country to pieces. It is barbarism.

For a leader like Putin, human lives are worth nothing, and neither is his own population. We see now how this Russian regime is prepared to sacrifice an entire generation of its young men in this meaningless and unjust war. It is deeply tragic.

History teaches us that there is only one answer to such a regime: resistance. It must be fought. It must not win, for what is next if Russia were to take Ukraine? Is it Moldova? Is it a new attempt on Georgia?

I am proud that the Social Democratic government from day one gave support to Ukraine after the attack. We will continue to back Swedish military, humanitarian and economic support efforts until the war is won.

Mr. Speaker! We will also continue to support the government in the ongoing Nato process. After Russia's attack on Ukraine, we Social Democrats drew the conclusion that what best serves Sweden's and the Swedish population's security now and for the foreseeable future is membership in Nato. The same conclusion was drawn in Finland.

Non-alignment has served Sweden well for over 200 years, but with this war, the conditions have changed.

We will continue to cooperate with the government to drive the Nato process forward, but I must say that there are now reasons to feel concern. Following the Sweden Democrats' statements in connection with the Quran burnings, and the government's reluctance to take a stand against them, the entire process has now been put on ice. We have now seen concretely how the government's dependence on a far-right, xenophobic, and Islamophobic party has had serious negative consequences for Sweden.

Yesterday it became even more serious through the announcement from Finland that they are now moving forward with their Nato legislation before the ratifications are completed. This could mean that Finland moves ahead into Nato and that Sweden is left behind in limbo. In that case, it is a failure for the Swedish government that they have not been able to keep Sweden and Finland together. This is not at all a non-issue, as the Foreign Minister claimed yesterday. It will, in fact, have far-reaching consequences for our military cooperation, not least the cooperation with Finland. This is a completely central issue for our security, and it must be taken seriously.

In one respect, it is the case that a Swedish and Finnish Nato membership would strengthen Nato and increase security in our part of the world. This is seen by other Nato countries. Let us hope that it can contribute to resolving the issue, but the government cannot wave away this as a non-issue. One must now show the leadership that is needed to be able to move the process forward.

Mr. Speaker! It did not take the new right-wing government many hours to abandon two Swedish foreign policy profile issues: the feminist foreign policy and the one percent goal for aid.

Both parts are incomprehensible. When we Social Democrats launched the feminist foreign policy nearly ten years ago, a number of governments of different political colors joined in. It happened in France, Germany, Canada, and many other countries. Our simple message of focusing on women's and girls' rights, resources, and representation simply inspired many other countries to do the same. Sweden created, through Margot Wallström and Ann Linde, something new.

Now the right-wing government is abandoning this, even though the rights of women and girls are being challenged more than in a long time. It is girls and women who are affected when extreme religious forces fight against sexual and reproductive rights. It is girls and women who, all over the world, fall victim to gross sexual violence, not least in war zones. It is girls and women who take the worst hit when the economy deteriorates and when unemployment and poverty spread.

Now the government is abandoning them, and it is simply a betrayal, not least against the background of how we see girls and women in Iran fighting for their lives to free themselves from the oppression they have suffered under for more than 40 years. They must be able to feel support from outside from all of us, and pressure must be put on the Iranian government, for example by us designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

So, as for the aid. Despite the fact that the Liberals and the Christian Democrats before the election promised, at any cost, to maintain the one percent goal, even to increase the aid, they are now abandoning the one percent goal.

The stupidest argument against the one percent goal is that there are no good projects to spend the money on. This is what is said in a world where 700 million people live in extreme poverty and where millions of children die every year of hunger and of diseases that could be cured. This has also been worsened by the pandemic and war. More and more people are being pushed down into extreme poverty. The gaps are increasing, and those who are hit hardest are, as usual, women and children.

At the same time, we find ourselves in the midst of a climate crisis where poor countries need to have support in order to be able to make the necessary transition to sustainability. It is a matter of destiny for the entire planet and for all of humanity.

In this situation, the Swedish government therefore chooses to abandon the one percent goal and cut back on aid.

This can also have other consequences, such as in the Middle East where the government is now cutting back on the UN's support for the millions of Palestinian refugees through UNRWA. Sweden is therefore deliberately choosing to play a negative role in the conflict at the same time as the violence there escalates even further. It is the wrong path to take.

For us Social Democrats, aid is a moral issue. The need is infinite. It is reasonable that we can set aside at least one one-hundredth of the country's total income to help the most vulnerable. A Social Democratic government will step by step re-establish the one percent goal, as for us it is a matter of solidarity and humanity.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In an interview, Morgan Johansson expressed that he is a poor loser. One can be that after an election, but it does not have to mean that one tries to become a world champion in antagonistic superlatives when we are now in the situation we are in.

The Social Democrats were among the larger parties that were most slow to pivot on the Nato issue. They needed plenty of time to analyze the new reality and refused until the very end to stand behind a Swedish Nato option when the Riksdag voted through announcements on it long before the current situation.

I want to urge the Social Democrats not to use provocations from left-wing extremist, right-wing extremist, and Islamist forces in the current situation in order to whip up domestic political instability and attempt to cause a government crisis, which both Magdalena Andersson and Morgan Johansson have tried to do but which, thankfully, fell flat. Many, not least security-oriented agencies, assess this as very serious, and there is no reason to do so. It did not work with the desperate press conference the Social Democrats held in the final stage of the election campaign, and it must not be allowed to gain a foothold now either.

That the Social Democrats have failed in the NATO issue is a fact, but I naturally welcome that they have changed their minds in light of the new reality. What lessons do the Social Democrats draw from this in their analytical work and in their ability to learn a lesson from the serious situation?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I wonder who it is that is supposed to learn a lesson. The Sweden Democrats must understand that you now hold a number of central positions in Swedish politics. This means that it matters what you say and do. When one Sweden Democrat pays Paludan to burn the Quran and another Sweden Democrat, additionally centrally placed, says that one can burn a hundred more Qurans outside the Turkish embassy, it carries significance. It perhaps did not carry significance when the Sweden Democrats were a smaller party and did not have any central positions, but now it carries significance.

I have pointed out that these statements and this conduct have caused the Swedish NATO process to stall. It would have been perfectly simple for the Swedish government to immediately distance itself from this, but the Swedish government has not managed to do so. It would, however, be commendable if Aron Emilsson did. Does he stand behind Richard Jomshof's perception that one can burn a hundred Qurans, or does he distance himself from it? Does Aron Emilsson not understand what effect this can have and already has had in foreign policy?

I seek no conflict in this but merely observe that, among other things, this caused the Swedish Natoprocess to stall. Now we who want to drive this process forward have a responsibility to cooperate.

I must say, however, that when one handles such an important issue in the flippant manner that, among others, the Sverigedemokraterna have done, it has consequences. Now take responsibility for your own party, Aron Emilsson! Now see to it that you distance yourself from the reckless statements that your party comrades have made.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe it has escaped anyone's notice that in my role as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and as foreign policy spokesperson for the Sverigedemokraterna, I have taken every opportunity to point out the incredibly regrettable, worrying, unnecessary and headlong nature of a series of all the provocations that have occurred as we stand on the threshold of NATO membership - regardless of whether it has concerned the hung puppet representing Erdogan, the Quran burnings or Turkey's counter-demands against Sweden. None of this serves the process.

I will not review the statements of the chairman of the Committee on Justice, but let me clarify that the statement Morgan Johansson refers to is taken out of context. The same person has also stated that it is an anti-intellectual, headless, idiotic and unwise way to handle the defense of freedom of speech. One must therefore see how the use of a single statement can cause a situation to flare up.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I heard no distancing, but rather an attempt to defend these statements. That can perhaps be understood given that it is a party comrade of Aron Emilsson we are talking about.

I mean that one must have a straight line when such things happen. I also felt a very strong disgust when I saw the doll being hung up, because such an action more or less incites political violence. I come from a political party where two central representatives were killed and therefore always feel strong disgust when parties, politicians, or opinion leaders behave that way and in some way toy with expressions of violence. One must be able to say it, and that is what we did too.

Likewise, when one's party colleague, in this case Aron Emilsson, makes reckless statements, one must be able to distance oneself from them. If one does not do so, there is a risk that this image will go out into the world as something that reflects Sweden's position, and that will have realpolitik consequences, which we have actually seen now when the NATO process has stalled.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like once again to welcome the Social Democrats' support for the ongoing NATO process. It is the most important foreign policy project during this parliamentary term and naturally beyond that. It is important to emphasize that the broad parliamentary support here in the chamber is a good support for the government in the work of ensuring the implementation of the memorandum that the previous government entered into.

I also want to emphasize that the government sees very strong support from Sweden's allies, not least through the visits to Stockholm in recent weeks from both the Polish and German foreign ministers. We have also seen it ourselves when we have traveled abroad. I have a good example of this from my own visit to Washington this autumn together with Finland's foreign minister, where I experienced the solidarity that exists among Nato allies for Sweden's membership to be able to become a reality as soon as possible.

I thought it was important to take the floor here to say that the claim that the process would have been put on ice is not correct. It has not been at all. No political talks have been held because Turkey itself has stated that it has not been meaningful. But that does not mean that the memorandum, which is our roadmap to becoming members, does not continue to be implemented. Conversations are being held at the official level and extensive activities are underway at the agency level to ensure that this becomes a reality. It is important in this context not to create the impression that the process is on ice, because it is not.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think one could say that the process has been put on ice to such an extent that no one really believes that anything will happen for real before the Turkish election, when it happens now. One doesn't really know. The earthquake can also affect that matter.

All the attempts to move forward that the government has made recently have turned out to fall flat on the ground. It has been a situation where the Speaker was no longer welcome in Turkey and where the Swedish Minister for Defence was not either, as a reaction to the Swedish discussion.

I raised the background to the discussion, and now that I have the Foreign Minister in front of me, I can take the opportunity to ask him how he views what led up to this situation. I mean that when one sits in leading positions, one must take responsibility for the expressions that are sometimes uttered and also be able to distance oneself from them.

When Left Party members waved PKK flags this summer, we, on the side of the Swedish government, were very clear about distancing ourselves from it. We said that it was indiscreet. But when a Sweden Democrat says that one can burn a hundred Qurans, I hear nothing from the Swedish government. In that situation, the government must simply be prepared to distance itself, because otherwise, the image outward becomes that this is somehow something that the Swedish government stands behind. So it cannot be.

Now the Minister for Foreign Affairs has the chance in his next reply to lay out the text regarding this. Was it not the case that these lapses in judgment caused the process to end up in a much weaker position than before? Take this opportunity now, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to speak plainly about this! That would be very good.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Utrikesministern Tobias Billström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, I shall speak plainly, but perhaps not quite in the way Morgan Johansson imagines. I have no problem condemning and speaking about the events that have occurred, whether they have concerned hanging puppets or burning sacred scriptures. They have naturally been reprehensible. That is also what I have said when I have been asked.

But Morgan Johansson seems to assume that this problem began when Sweden got a new government. That is not the case. When we took office, we inherited the situation that existed previously. There was a mistrust on the Turkish side depending on an agreement entered into with Amineh Kakabaveh, until recently a member of this chamber, in which your government and also you yourself, Morgan Johansson, were highly involved. It is clear that it created an uphill battle that we have had to work with in a government position.

In that regard, I can say that it has been very clear in the contacts from the Turkish side that we in the newly appointed government were not perceived to have the same baggage as the old government. We naturally have a situation right now that has been more negative, but we are therefore coming to a different table than before.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Tobias Billström wants to try to rewrite history, but the truth is that the previous government largely resolved those knots through the Madrid Agreement that we signed. That was the way forward that we indicated, and we had good cooperation with all parties in the process. The problem has arisen now because during the spring, things have deteriorated dramatically.

Right now, nothing is moving forward at all, and it is actually the Foreign Minister's responsibility to try to indicate a way forward. The latest thing seen - yesterday - is that there is a risk that the entire plan to enter together with Finland also collapses. In that case, it is a failure for the Swedish government. I think that the Foreign Minister should take responsibility for that failure and, in that case, also indicate a way forward. It is the government that governs the realm, and he has that responsibility.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Morgan Johansson gives a good description of one of the most serious consequences of the new right-wing government's policy, namely the enormous cuts in Sweden's aid budget which mean that the world's poorest now have to pay the price for the bourgeois policy. A fundamental pillar in Swedish aid policy has been that 1 percent of our total income should go to the world's poorest to make the world more equal. That goal has existed for over 50 years, and now the right-wing government is removing it. It is part of a very bad aid policy that the new M-led government is pursuing. On this, Morgan Johansson and I agree on much.

At the same time, it is impossible to escape the Social Democrats' responsibility for where we are now regarding the aid policy. For several years, the Social Democrats pursued a policy that paved the way for this situation. In the Social Democrats' own shadow budget last autumn, they did not even live up to the one percent goal, which they claim to safeguard.

What have the Social Democrats done then? The big problem is the deductions of the aid. The then S-government used the aid as a cash box to take money from to meet increasing costs, primarily for refugee reception. When the war in Ukraine broke out, the aid was quickly reduced to finance the reception of refugees - refugees who never arrived. But despite decisions on repatriation, the reductions had major consequences for Swedish aid during last year.

The Christian Democrats, for example, prioritized getting a cap on the deductions at 8 percent rather than an aid budget of 1 percent. It was a misprioritization, but still a prioritization - which would not have been necessary if the Social Democrats had not engaged in such large deductions. What responsibility do the Social Democrats have for the reduction of the aid budget, according to Morgan Johansson?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are adding 2.5 billion to the aid. We increased the aid in our budget proposal, while the government cut it by 1.4 billion in absolute figures.

Then Håkan Svenneling took up the issue of the deductions, which do occur in accordance with the DAC rules that exist and which all countries follow. I actually think it is reasonable that a part of the aid money should be able to go towards financing costs that arise in connection with refugees. So all previous governments, as far as I know, have also handled this. It is in accordance with the DAC regulations.

What I said in my speech was that we Social Democrats stand up for the one percent goal. We will ensure a return to the one percent goal when we get the opportunity to govern Sweden again, because for us, it is a moral issue. At least one hundredth of our total income should actually be able to go to the most vulnerable. Håkan Svenneling does not need to hesitate for a second over that.

The step up to 1 percent is, however, quite large. It is 7 billion, if one were to increase aid from one year to another. The Social Democrats will take this step by step. We also take responsibility for ensuring that the state budget balances out as a whole. The Left Party does not always feel that responsibility, but we do. This means that when we make such large commitments, we carry them out step by step, in the same way as when we reinstated the one percent goal in the early 2000s after it had deviated while we were cleaning up the state finances. Håkan Svenneling can be completely certain that we Social Democrats hold fast to the one percent goal and will live up to it in a government position as well.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! If Morgan Johansson wants to read a budget on how to live up to the one percent goal, he can read the Left Party's or the Green Party's budget motions. I even believe that the Center Party's budget motion has 1 percent. It is only the Social Democrats who first say that they want to safeguard it but then say: Well, 7 billion became a bit much. We only had 2.

Stop the number-tricks! You are unable to live up to the one percent goal. You have attacked aid with deductions for a long time. You have hidden behind OECD-DAC. It led to you calling the world's countries to an environmental conference called Stockholm + 50. But the week before, you had cut aid to the countries that showed up there. This is the effect of your aid policy.

This has given the bourgeois parties, with the Sweden Democrats in the lead, the opportunity to attack the aid, which has resulted in a 50-year cornerstone of Swedish foreign policy now being gone. You must take responsibility for this. Sweden must stand up for the aid.

I think the rhetoric I hear from the Social Democrats is good. But show it also in the figures and in the money on the table! Read the other parties' budget motions so you can learn how it is done!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is classic Left Party rhetoric to say that what the bourgeois parties do in one way or another is actually the Social Democrats' fault. That is because the Left Party's main opponent has never been the bourgeois parties, but it is we who have been it. It is always us you give in to.

I naturally take responsibility for the budget that we have presented, and it means that we progressively return to the one percent goal. But we are also a party that takes responsibility for the public finances as a whole. We realize that one cannot do this from one year to the next, but we scale it up gradually. We are adding 2.5 billion in our budget proposal for this year, and if we return to a position of government, Håkan Svenneling can be completely certain that we will return to the one percent goal. But we will do it at the pace that the public finances allow. Never doubt our direction!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to praise Morgan Johansson and the Socialdemokraterna, just as I praised the Foreign Minister earlier, for the markers. It is good that you are so clear that there is a broad consensus on the support for Ukraine and on the support for a NATO membership.

It is also good that the Social Democrats stand up for the one percent goal. But here I must nevertheless interject that it would have been possible to do so in this year's budget as well. Now the Social Democrats are just like us in opposition. We managed to stand up for the one percent goal. It came at a cost, but we chose to do it. To stand up now shows that we do not want to reduce aid.

It is a position that we also championed during the Alliance government. The Alliance government was clear about standing up for the one percent goal. It is a marker that Morgan Johansson probably needs to reflect on when he refers to the Social Democrats' history in that part.

Mr. Speaker! I must also ask a question. Could Sweden not have become a NATO member earlier? Would it not have been possible to invite to overarching talks earlier than after February 24, 2022? Then we might not have faced the challenge that we are experiencing right now.

In conclusion: I heard nothing about new sanctions. Do the Social Democrats stand by the views that the EU should introduce sanctions against the IRGC as well as tightened Magnitsky sanctions against corruption and systematic money laundering?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the final question, I mentioned the terrorist classification of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in my speech. That is what we stand for.

Regarding the question of whether we could have become a Nato member earlier, one overlooks that the very background to us taking that step was the war and the fact that Finland decided to join Nato. The war that began a year ago made it clear that Russia did not respect the European security order at all. It called into question the entire order that we had had in Europe for decades; it was, after all, established in the 70s. It made us have to reflect on our future stance and how we would be positioned going forward.

I stand up for the policy of neutrality that Sweden pursued during 200 years. It was not we Social Democrats who invented it, but Karl XIV Johan did. It served Sweden well through two world wars and also through all the wars in the 19th century.

To pull up that policy to move towards something else was a huge step, but we chose to do it when we saw the developments when Russia attacked Ukraine and when we also saw how Finland made its choice. That is how one must view this.

I have already commented on the one percent goal. The Social Democrats will stand by it. We added 2.5 billion in our budget proposal, and we will step by step re-establish the one percent goal in a government position.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that the Social Democrats nevertheless refer to Karl XIV Johan when it comes to the policy of neutrality. It is, of course, a piece of historiography that we can all take issue with.

Mr. Speaker! We actually saw Russia attack Georgia in 2008. We saw Russia attack Ukraine in 2014. It was at that point that the Center Party concluded that we had to change our position. We saw that Russia had other plans.

We have for many years tried - oh, how we have tried! - to extend a hand to the Social Democrats to start a discussion about what has been the case and whether we should change our position on security policy. But the Social Democrats did not want to listen. For this reason, I think there are grounds for them to be a little humble in this part.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I only presented the arguments. What happened a year ago with a large-scale war of aggression - the war of invasion - which aims to take all of Ukraine was something that we have not seen at any time during the entire post-war period. It was this that made us reflect on what conclusions we must draw from it.

At the same time, there was a process in Finland that also played a role. The fact that Sweden did not take the step into Nato after the Second World War was, among other things, consideration for Finland. When Finland began to discuss Nato membership, it simply became significant for us as well. That is how the background looks.

I hope that we will be able to drive the process in the case forward together. Right now it looks a bit difficult, but we in the Social Democrats remain a constructive partner to the government so that this can be moved forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are gathered in the chamber for the annual foreign policy debate in connection with the government presenting its foreign policy declaration, which I warmly welcome.

Initially, I would like to express my deep and warm sympathy to those who are now suffering in the humanitarian catastrophe following the earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. It is a great tragedy, and the number of deceased is enormous. Sweden's initial support was swift, but we will also need to see further efforts ahead.

Mr. Speaker! Russia is today an empire of evil. If this is the case, there can be no doubt after all the massacres, all the torture, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, kidnappings, and not least the threat of using weapons of mass destruction.

The Russian Federation is driving our continent towards a completely new security policy environment and has done so over time. The war in Ukraine, which we witnessed during the previous year and witness at the present moment, lacks a counterpart in many respects in the modern history of Europe and the world. It is no coincidence that the root of the evil originates from the power in the Kremlin. So it has been in several cases throughout history, and so it will most likely also remain for the foreseeable future.

A generation of Ukrainians is fighting together with volunteers in Ukraine at this moment for all our freedom. It is a very impressive feat that has been achieved by Ukraine's defenders during the past year. We must stand up against the overwhelming power that has not hesitated to use any means to fight them. Ukraine's defenders withstood the surprising and brutal Russian attack on February 24. They defended themselves bravely on several fronts, not least in the battle for the capital, which was decisive. There, the defense succeeded after bloody battles. Finally, they managed to inflict such large losses on the Russian forces that they were forced to retreat. The Ukrainian defense also succeeded on all the other fronts in both the east and the south. Russia was even forced to cancel planned operations because the defense was so strong. Since then, Ukraine has succeeded during the year in taking back area after area. Russia has even had to leave the city of Kherson, which was Russia's most successful conquest. At the same time, the Russian mobilization and the new waves of attacks are now worrying again.

Mr. Speaker! The defense of Ukraine has, however, not been conducted in a security policy vacuum. Thanks to the fact that Europe's countries have supported Ukraine, not least with weapons, the Ukrainian operations have succeeded in many respects so far. Among these allies, we can count Sweden, which quickly and with great unanimity just days after the Russian attack decided to send a support package containing weapons. After this support package, there have been many more. The most extensive has been decided by the current government. At this moment, the Armed Forces and other authorities are working on transferring weapons to Ukraine, including 50 units of one of the world's most modern combat vehicles - the Stridsfordon 90. It is something to be very proud of, but more remains to be done. The Sweden Democrats have taken the initiative - and will take more - to facilitate arms exports to Ukraine and to other states threatened by Russia or other aggressive dictatorships.

The need for the Western world to unite and for Sweden to clearly be part of this unity has never been greater. Therefore, the Swedish NATO application is so important. The Sweden Democrats stand as a well-rooted pine behind this. Consequently, there can be no doubt today. When we already in December 2020, with a parliamentary majority, declared that we needed to introduce a NATO option in order to enable a rapid entry into the alliance should the need arise, we acted in exactly the same way as Finland, which has had a NATO option since 1995. Last year, we chose to act, just like Finland, based on this option and decreed that Sweden joins NATO as quickly as possible. On this, we stand firm. We will in every way contribute to the final ratifications taking place and to us becoming full members of the alliance as soon as possible. This strengthens the security of Sweden, Europe, and the world. It also strengthens the security in our immediate vicinity.

Mr. Speaker! That we stand united does not only apply in Europe. It applies globally. Sweden shall stand united behind the world's democracies, regardless of whether it concerns Israel, South Korea, or Taiwan. The threat from aggressive dictatorships has not diminished. We see in the Middle East how the Iranian leadership continues its oppression. The threat from radical Islamism has not ceased. In the Middle East, it is Israel that in many respects are those who primarily stand up for democracy and freedom. Our support for that country must never falter.

In Asia, states such as Taiwan and Japan stand up against an increasingly aggressive China and North Korea. In China, a massive buildup is underway. The country is building up its military capability both with conventional weapons and with strategic nuclear weapons which can reach even our country. China's buildup is a global threat. We must not forget that Chinese and Russian warships collided in our Baltic Sea in 2017. The nuclear buildup is massive, and the country is expected to more than double its strategic nuclear weapons by 2030. Even in the Arctic, the country shows its global ambitions. In Africa, they act primarily economically, but they have already established a military base in Djibouti. It could be a matter of time before we see Chinese military bases in the Atlantic as well. China also poses a threat with non-conventional means. They actively conduct intelligence gathering against Swedish technology as well as acquisitions of strategically important companies, not least within critical infrastructure. Against this, we need to shape our foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker! The changed security policy situation finally needs to put an end to an order that for decades has been given with an incomplete preparedness work conducted by both red and blue governments. We have dismantled a total defense capability, a civil defense capability, and a civil preparedness which now once again proves to be completely necessary to gather, coordinate, exercise, and prepare the nation and the nation's interests in connection with us facing external pressures and a new security policy environment. We shall not return to a poor preparedness.

I want to conclude by thanking all those who fight on Ukraine's side. It is you who ultimately uphold the security for all the rest of us. It is you whom we must support to the best of our ability - for a peace based on freedom and independence.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Shortly after the Swedish election, the Iranian morality police murdered Jina Mahsa Amini. This led to large-scale popular protests in Iran, the largest seen in a very long time. It also led to a major debate here in Sweden, which is due to the fact that we have very many Swedes of Iranian origin who are engaged in this issue. I remember well—which I believe the Speaker also does—when we had an interpellation debate on a cold Tuesday evening in November and the entire chamber was filled with observers. This was also the Foreign Minister's first debate.

The Sweden Democrats have long had a rather powerful tone towards the Iranian regime. Many times, the Left Party and the Sweden Democrats have directed similar criticism towards the previous S-led government. But now that the Sweden Democrats are part of the new government base from their Tidö agreement, I think the sharpness and clarity regarding Iran seems to be waning from the SD side, even though Aron Emilsson took it up in his speech.

In December, there was an opportunity for the Riksdag to ensure that Sweden's position would be that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, called IRGC, should be designated as a terrorist organization. It is an opinion that the Sverigedemokraterna have stated several times that they stand behind. But instead of forming a majority with us in the opposition, the Sverigedemokraterna loyally backed the government's significantly more ambiguous position that the government shall investigate the conditions for a terrorist listing. This has resulted in us being in a situation where Sweden is now waiting for all other EU countries before we can potentially consider designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. It is a very weak and unclear position, especially as the Iranian regime continues to execute peaceful protesters. Is your loyalty to the government more important than the Iranian people's struggle for freedom? What is required for the Sverigedemokraterna to vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, IRGC, as a terrorist organization?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Håkan Svenneling for a very pressing and topical question. The Sweden Democrats have contributed to sharpening the Swedish position. We have actively done so, not least in connection with meetings in the EU Committee when an original position from the government had been far too vague in our eyes. Accordingly, we have also pushed to sharpen positions. We will need to continue doing that. We have a number of initiatives that we envision, not least that the legal analysis of what it entails to terror-label the IRGC must be completed as soon as possible. We must not end up in a situation where Sweden merely ducks behind the fact that there are a few EU countries that are not prepared to go all the way because one is afraid that it will not hit in the right way, afraid of counterattacks, or whatever it may be about.

We must dare to be forward-looking in this. The analysis needs to be completed in the near future and expeditiously. If it were to indicate that there is something that would cause problems if further sanctions against the IRGC as a whole or a terrorist designation were implemented, that must, of course, be addressed. But based on what we have seen, there is a great need to terrorist-designate and sanction the organization and the unit as a whole and not just individual individuals.

I am following it closely. I hope that we can reach a solution where both Sverigedemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet stand united in that we need to move forward with force against the Iranian regime and stand up for all those who suffer under the oppression that is ongoing. I welcome it if we can find common solutions in this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is the chair of the EU. On Monday, Foreign Minister Billström is to travel to Brussels for the meeting of the foreign ministers there. Iran is not on the agenda on Monday.

Despite this, large demonstrations will be held in Brussels specifically in favor of the Iranian people. It clearly shows the dissonance and failure from leading European politicians toward the Iranian people and also all the exiled Iranians who are here.

It is good that Aron Emilsson still stands by that you want to classify as terrorism. The Sweden Democrats have a very clear choice here. Either you will follow the Palace Agreement and be extremely loyal to the government in its foreign policy, or you will demonstrate that Sweden's Riksdag shapes the foreign policy.

We can do that because there is a majority in the Riksdag to designate the revolutionary guard as a terrorist organization. Let us then use that. I understand if you want to wait a bit, but 2023 is a long year. It can still be designated as a terrorist organization.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only repeat that I see a series of initiatives ahead of us that we may need to take into dialogue with the government and monitor in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. This concerns both the terrorist designation and the sanctioning of the IRGC as a whole. It also concerns how bilateral relations and agreements with Iran may look going forward as long as the regime maintains the oppression against the civilian population and all the opposition members who are in the country.

It is obvious that we have a close and will have a full cooperation with the government in the foreign policy area. We will continue to have that. It does not mean, which is clear in the Tidö Agreement, that we do not have the possibility to drive an active opposition and opinion in the issues that are not framed by the Tidö Agreement, in the budget negotiations, or in other respects.

In as many respects as we can, we shall try to reach an agreement. Where we cannot do so, we will drive an active and clear opinion.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to listen to Aron Emilsson. He says that SD is a well-rooted fir when it comes to the Nato issue. We welcomed that the Sweden Democrats were ready to stand up for a Nato option that we proposed and had previously proposed. You still stood up and voted for our motion 2020.

Then there is this matter regarding well-rooted pine. A year ago, we discussed a question about balance between great powers. At that time, the Sverigedemokraterna had removed it from their website. Now I looked at the Sverigedemokraterna's policy program. There it stands very clearly that the Sverigedemokraterna are open to the possibility of creating a Nordic defense alliance. Should this goal prove impossible to realize, the starting point for Swedish defense and security policy should be to strive for alliance-freedom in peace aiming for neutrality in war.

Mr. Speaker! It is a formulation that disappeared from the Swedish security policy doctrine a long time ago. But it still remains. Since the Sweden Democrats have now nevertheless chosen to campaign for Nato membership after February 24 last year, perhaps the election platform has changed the picture. But, Mr. Speaker, I could not find it when I read the election platform. Allow me to question the well-rooted fur when it comes to the view on Nato from the Sweden Democrats' side.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the question of SD's history and the will to be active in supporting membership, one must settle one's fight against Muslims. It is part of the Sverigedemokraternas raison d'être. Settle it, Aron Emilsson!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One of the first site visits and meetings I conducted after entering the Riksdag was, among others, to speak with an imam in the Greater Stockholm area to see how one can find common ground in increased tensions. I believe that is possible even if one has different religions, different backgrounds, and different views on different issues. I believe that we may need to do this even if we can be crystal clear that we will never bow or bend to Islamist provocations or anything else of that kind that we are to give space for in Sweden.

I believe that what Kerstin Lundgren refers to with the previous formulations is what is contained in the principle program. The principle program is a document that is in many ways timeless and is not updated particularly often. That may be the simple explanation for why the old formulations simply remain in the program.

Our election platform, on the other hand, shall, I assure you, be based on the current circumstances and the clear shift we made after reality changed, not least since a year ago with Russia's war of invasion against Ukraine and our reconsideration of the Nato issue. I feel convinced of that.

What we are now beginning to see is that we are in the process of formulating and shaping an even more expanded, deepened, and widened Nordic security and defense cooperation. With the Nato entry, we are building a strong, not least Nordic-Baltic defense dimension within Nato. We can do this even if we enter with the 360-degree perspective and the solidarity declaration to be a part of Nato as a whole. It is still not relevant in that respect.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! I searched under foreign affairs, security, and defense, but I saw nothing about NATO membership in the election platform. But it is possible that it stood in some other section that I could not discover.

Mr. Speaker! We shall not bow to Islamists. We shall not bow to extremists in any form. But we shall also not seek to polarize societies with religion as a weapon. Is it not precisely that line that the Sweden Democrats seek to choose, even if Aron Emilsson here says that he has visited an imam?

It is often precisely the expression that Muslims are a threat that the Sweden Democrats promote. Is it not precisely in that context that the Justice Committee chairman's comments about burning a hundred Qurans should be seen as so serious? Distance yourself from that too, Aron Emilsson!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin where Kerstin Lundgren finished. It is fundamental that we, under all circumstances and at all conceivable times, stand up for and defend our unconditional freedom of expression enshrined in the constitution. That can be done. Things that are permitted are often permitted even when they are not appropriate.

This statement is also taken out of context. Richard Jomshof expressed that it is a headless, anti-intellectual method that should not be used to try to seek provocation with freedom of speech as a shield. But even if it is not appropriate, it is permitted. So our constitution reads in this regard. We must be careful to explain this to those who wonder.

At the same time, I believe it is crystal clear to everyone listening to my statements that I have condemned the provocations that have occurred in the form of Quran burnings, hanging of dolls, Islamist pressures, or headless counter-demands from interests of foreign powers. It is possible to do that. We can hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Imperialism - that is the word that best describes Putin's mindset when he takes it upon himself to attack a free democratic neighboring country like Ukraine.

It is about the freedom of all peoples. All occupations are illegal and must cease. Over the past year, the Ukrainian people have shown that they refuse to let themselves be oppressed by despot Putin's imperialist ambitions. With support from the rest of the world, they have heroically stood up to defend their country against a ruthless and brutal aggressor who does not hesitate to commit thousands of war crimes daily.

The Kremlin has for a long time ruled Russia in a direction that is reactionary, conservative, and patriarchal. Russia oppresses oppositionists and human rights defenders and acts aggressively towards its neighboring countries and plays a destabilizing role in world politics.

Extensive sanctions against Russia, together with our military support, have been important for the Ukrainian military's successes, such as the retaking of the city of Kherson. But now the long-term nature of our support is being decided. More than military resources are now required to withstand the resilience, especially as the Russian military deliberately targets civilian targets such as energy supply. Therefore, unity both in Sweden and in the EU is important for the Ukrainian people, and in Sweden, that unity is great.

But Sweden needs to take a bigger step. Many of those who are fighting have relatives who are here in Sweden. Sweden needs to get better at taking care of the women and children who seek protection from Putin's bombs.

The government says it wants to see long-term and coherent support for Ukraine. Let it be support for help in all parts – both for Ukrainian soldiers who fight for peace and freedom and for all civilians who resist on the ground. But let it also be support for all women and children who are fleeing and are now here in Sweden. Support for Ukrainian refugees is also support for the building of future good relations between Sweden and Ukraine for a long time to come.

Mr. Speaker! As a reaction to Russia's attack on Ukraine, Sweden's two largest parties decided to change their opinion on Swedish non-alignment, which has protected us from war and conflict for over 200 years. After their decision, the then Social Democratic government decided to apply for membership in Nato.

Despite blue-eyed hopes for a swift accession process, it has become exactly the opposite. Already in the days before the application was submitted - actually on the same day that all parties in the Riksdag submitted their security policy report - Turkey's President Erdogan announced that he opposes membership for Sweden and Finland. It became the starting signal for a diplomatic circus that is still ongoing, especially after the then Foreign Minister Ann Linde signed a memorandum, a kind of agreement, with Turkey and Finland. And it is a circus that has truly continued under the current Foreign Minister Tobias Billström.

The Swedish people have only been able to stand by and wonder what is happening with their democratic freedoms and rights, with the rule of law regarding migration, and with Sweden's international voice for peace, freedom, and human rights. All of this consists of values that have ended up in the paper shuffle to appease President Erdogan - without much success.

So, who then are the hidden power players who have decided that Sweden should join Nato? I am thinking of listing three, whom no citizen has voted for but who have exerted great political influence both in Sweden's application and in restricting our rights.

The first is Oscar Stenström. Oscar Stenström is a Social Democratic politician who was recalled from the ambassador post in Chile when Magdalena Andersson became Prime Minister. He then received the position of the Prime Minister's State Secretary.

When the NATO process started, he was driving the change in perception regarding a Swedish NATO membership. When the negotiations with Turkey then began, Stenström became the one who was given the responsibility to lead them. Stenström has long been described as a right-wing Social Democrat, but that he would be so far to the right that he could survive a change of government and remain in office was something few could foresee.

We know relatively little about Stenström's work, but by him having emailed certain tasks to his private email address, a compilation of how much Sweden has done to appease Turkey has emerged. The compilation gives the impression that the authorities' degrees of freedom may not be so great when it comes to decisions regarding Turkey. Most noteworthy is probably the calculation of how many Kurds and oppositionists Sweden has deported to Turkey. It is a list of demands that Turkey constantly changes, and its daily entry is 130 people.

The second hidden power player who has directed and managed the Swedish NATO process is NATO's Secretary General, the Norwegian Jens Stoltenberg. Stoltenberg's role has primarily been to pursue Turkey's interests and force Sweden and Finland to the negotiating table. Secretary General Stoltenberg could have focused on NATO's so-called open door policy and united all other NATO countries against Turkey's demands. Instead, he has repeatedly stated that Turkey has "legitimate security requirements" to impose on Sweden and Finland. Jens Stoltenberg has thereby become Erdogan's henchman to hunt Kurds and oppositionists, yes, everyone that Erdogan defines as terrorists.

During the conference People and Defence, I listened to Stoltenberg. There were many beautiful words about democracy, but when it came to Turkey and why Sweden and Finland should negotiate with Turkey, the answers were few.

Why is Stoltenberg doing this then? Probably because it is Turkey, not Great Britain or France, that is Nato's second largest member after the USA, with a large influence over Nato and its Secretary General. In hindsight, one might ask if Secretary General Stoltenberg deceived Sweden and Finland when he forced the memorandum to be signed in Madrid. Vänsterpartiet warned already then about the consequences of the agreement, and unfortunately, it turns out that we were right. The new M-led government obviously has no problems with attacking constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

The third power holder that pushed for a Swedish Nato membership is the media. Many probably wonder who it was at SVT who decided that Sweden should join Nato, for in the spring of 2022, Swedish news reporting on Nato was truly pathetic. Every day, the news was topped by the question of how many centimeters closer Sweden was to membership. Only after the application was submitted did the media wake up suddenly and begin reporting on nuclear weapons, foreign bases, and Turkey's lack of democracy.

Media researchers can certainly describe what happened better than I can, but it was not the Swedish media's finest moment in investigative journalism. It led to us getting a new law on foreign espionage, which makes it harder for journalists specifically to scrutinize Sweden's relations with other countries, such as Turkey.

It is obvious that the hidden power holders have had great influence over the Swedish NATO process. It would therefore be better if we stopped for a moment and reflected on whether we, regardless of whether we are for or against NATO membership, should crawl in this way for the despot Erdogan's Turkey. I believe that the Foreign Minister today is doing us a disservice when he places the NATO proposal on the Riksdag's table. It risks leading to Erdogan being able to put even more pressure on the Swedish NATO application.

Mr. Speaker! The last topic I intended to take up today is Iran. I already did so in my first speech here in the chamber this parliamentary term. I am glad about everyone who has stood up after the murder of Jina Mahsa Amini so that it will make a difference. "Zan, zendegi, azadi" and "jin, jiyan, azadi" are words that have become the hallmark of these protests.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

TALMANNEN

I want to remind that there is a limit to how much one should comment on individual civil servants in the Government Offices in a debate in the chamber of the Riksdag and that it is a fine balance, as appears from the rules of procedure. I will monitor this closely during the continued debate.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for that comment, for it was precisely this that prompted me to request a reply! I had not intended to do so otherwise.

Håkan Svenneling is trying in this way to single out an individual official - who furthermore cannot defend himself. He is not here in the chamber. We others, who are politicians and participating in the debate, can defend ourselves. We can request replies, but Oscar Stenström cannot. I think that Håkan Svenneling here is going far beyond the limit of how one should behave in such a debate.

I also want to say in substance that there is no big conspiracy. It sounded like Håkan Svenneling was saying that these are hidden power holders who have decided things in closed rooms, whatever that may be - Illuminati or something.

There are no conspiracies or hidden power players; I can say that by virtue of the fact that I have actually been involved throughout the entire process. I was Minister for Justice and Home Affairs during the process. I sat with the then Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and with our central authorities throughout the entire process. I was also involved in going out in the Social Democratic Party and discussing this throughout the entire spring to check where we would land on the issue.

There are no hidden power players. What it is about is that we saw how Russia attacked Ukraine and how Finland moved towards NATO membership. We then drew the conclusion that what serves Sweden best from a security perspective for the future is that Sweden also seeks NATO membership.

All these arguments have been open for the entire Swedish people to take part in. They have also been tested in an election as recently as last autumn, where the Vänsterpartiet, moreover, moved backwards.

No, there are no conspiracies here and no hidden power holders. I think Håkan Svenneling should be clear about that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I was also part of the security policy talks. I was also there and experienced how the security policy talks were shortened, even though there were things on our agenda that we needed to look at. I was also there and heard how it was struck out that there would be problems with Turkey and Hungary. That is why we are sitting here today. That is why the Foreign Minister is in the shit, and there he sits stuck. That is why Morgan Johansson says that this is on ice, that nothing will happen with the Swedish Nato application.

Now we have been told that the Swedish Riksdag is also going to vote on this, even though it has no significance because only 28 of 30 countries have approved Sweden's Nato application. Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet managed with precision to point out 2 of 30 countries and say that these will become the problem. Everyone said: No, that will not happen. I believe it is very important to remember that for the writing of history.

That is why I mean that we must talk about which power holders, whom the Swedish people have not elected, are behind this. Jens Stoltenberg is highly responsible for the fact that Sweden's security situation is as bad as it is right now. He has contributed to this through the advice he gave to the Social Democratic government and the advice he has given to the new Moderate-led government.

Morgan Johansson is right: He was involved himself. He is responsible for the fact that we are where we are.

What I demand is that we return to the Swedish hallmark of credible diplomacy, that we are credible in our foreign policy and act for it in a calm and level-headed manner. We no longer do that. Morgan Johansson's and Billström's Twitter accounts are two very good examples. I believe that more of that would be needed.

I mean that it is important to highlight the role of those in power when they are well-paid officials in the Government Offices. Then one deserves to be scrutinized. It is good if Swedish media does it, and it is good if Swedish politicians also do it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

TALMANNEN

I want to urge the members to use a careful language and avoid overly vulgar formulations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Morgan Johansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! What I am reacting to is that Håkan Svenneling is trying to make it seem as if a Secretary of State in the Government Offices or the Secretary General of NATO would have decided or been decisive for us seeking membership in NATO. That was not the case. The decisive factor was Russia's attack on Ukraine and that Finland then initiated a discussion within itself.

The discussion has been open from the very beginning. The arguments have been weighed from the very beginning. The Swedish people have also, through their voting action during the autumn, been able to react to this.

We are used to it being the right wing that creates and drives a lot of conspiracy theories, with QAnon, fake news, and all that. When one then hears a Left Party member standing and trying to get out corresponding conspiracy theories, one actually has to react. That was why I requested a reply.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! Morgan Johansson seems to be interested in discussing both the party split of 1917 and conspiracy theories with me today. It is interesting to see this from the Social Democrats.

I do not mean that it is a conspiracy. It is the Social Democrats who have changed their stance on the Nato issue, and that is why Sweden is on its way towards Nato. 90 percent of us in here will vote for it. I have no problem with that, because that is what democracy is. But you do not understand that you are dealing with an authoritarian leader in President Erdogan who shrinks democracy day by day. Now we are truly handing him the golden platter by voting on this before he has approved us.

It was not a fair debate in the spring of 2022. The security policy report contains no arguments against a Nato application - you could look with a microscope. Turkey is not mentioned in the report, except in the Left Party's reservation. So that was the conversation in 2022. It has consequences today. It means that we are in the shit, and there we are stuck.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

TALMANNEN

I remind again of the importance of choosing one's words in the chamber.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Mr. Speaker! An immense number of people are fighting today globally for their survival, to regain hope for a better future for themselves, their children, and their loved ones. Right now, we all seek to take in the human suffering that follows the horrific earthquake in southeastern Turkey and northwestern Syria. Our thoughts are with all those affected, and of course, Sweden shall contribute to alleviating it.

The world has to deal with multiple crises. We are experiencing war, conflicts, climate change, pandemics, natural disasters, growing oppression and lack of freedom. Human rights and democracy continue to retreat. Autocracies and dictatorships are the reality for 70 percent of the world's population. There is talk of toxic polarization, linked to culture, religion, and so on, which drives this development.

The international legal order has for a long time been undermined without us having been able to react or act. If the existing multilateral order is to survive, the solutions must not be shaped to suit the oppressor states, the majority of the world's countries. A global struggle prevails here where we must stand up for the regulatory frameworks we have been involved in shaping, which have contributed to increased freedom and prosperity and lifted so many people out of poverty and hopelessness. Centerpartiet wants to see Sweden stand up for the multilateral systems and for the UN, even as we see the trust erode.

Sweden's voice must be strong and clear for independent judiciaries and democracy. The EU is our most important foreign policy arena. We shall actively, with like-minded [nations], strengthen democracies and the EU's voice for solutions that also promote freedom and sustainability. We shall stand stronger against autocrats and dictators regardless of where they are seated. We shall stand up for political prisoners, journalists, and human rights defenders such as Navalnyj, Kara-Murza, Bjaljatski, Protasevitj, Djalali, Dawit Isaak, and Gui Minhai.

When countries such as Russia, Belarus, Iran, China and others seize and imprison the voices of freedom, we must speak and act. The world's democracies must unite to give democrats a voice - for human rights and against oppression. We must stand up when democracies are threatened, such as Taiwan, by strengthening diplomatic presence through a House of Sweden. Here, I expect more from the government.

Mr. Speaker! The year 2022 was the year when the Swedish security policy line was shifted, this after several years of disagreement where the Social Democratic governments, despite Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and war in eastern Ukraine, refused to invite dialogue on security policy and on Nato. They stubbornly held fast to the view that neutrality served Sweden's security well and built their position and their Nato-policy on Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Sverigedemokraterna.

This is now history. After Putin's and Russia's unprovoked and brutal military attacks on Ukraine, it became clear to most that our non-alignment served neither Sweden's nor our neighbors' security against an aggressive Russia. Russia, with its war of conquest against Ukraine, has shown a total lack of respect for international law, entered agreements, and promises. With its war, Russia gives neocolonialism a clear face.

Sweden could, after talks last spring in broad agreement, submit our application together with Finland to join Nato. We received invitee status at the Madrid meeting last year. Sweden has shortly fulfilled our part of the trilateral memorandum. Then we can and shall also ratify, just as the government announced in March. We welcome that.

Then we expect that the countries that welcomed us will also complete the process, so that NATO's open door is confirmed for Sweden and Finland in Vilnius in early July. As NATO members, we will want to participate fully to strengthen NATO. NATO strengthens our defense and our security but also our foreign policy. And we contribute to strengthening the values on which both the UN and NATO were founded - democracy, freedom and human rights.

These are the values Russia is at war against in Ukraine. The Georgia war in 2008, followed by the military attack on Ukraine and the occupation of Crimea in 2014, showed Russia's imperial path. The Kremlin wants to conquer all of Ukraine, split the West, close NATO's open door, and roll back countries' NATO membership. They want to continue their empire-building and shape an authoritarian world order.

The people of Ukraine have, with gigantic sacrifices, with blood, sweat and tears, resisted the Russian military war of aggression. The West has united in our support for Ukraine's independence. We can and shall do more so that Ukraine wins both the war and the peace.

Persistence and long-term commitment are required here, with the goal that Ukraine should also be able to become an EU member. A modern Marshall Plan is required for that and for reconstruction. To the greatest extent possible, Russian frozen assets shall go towards the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Membership is also desired by Moldova as well as Georgia and is the focus of our support to them. It is not unconditional but is, in like manner with other candidate countries, a path forward towards a functioning rule of law, human rights and democracy.

Swedish foreign policy will have a strong focus on the immediate vicinity and Ukraine. The Centre Party shares that view but also wants to see the government nurture and update what remains of the Eastern Partnership and that one has the strength to see the world. Sweden has invested in long-term relations with many who, just as Ukraine is doing now, have fought for their independence. This applies not least in the global south.

Sweden has contributed to creating conditions for people living in poverty and oppression to improve their living conditions. We have strengthened the position of girls and women through schooling and SRHR. We also contribute to climate adaptation and climate measures.

Sweden must not squander our trust capital, our invested time, and our invested tax money in a time of multiple crises and challenges by reducing our presence and our aid. Sweden shall stand up for an aid of 1 percent. Much more on this Anna Lasses will touch upon in her speech.

Madam Speaker! Sweden and the EU must see that our interests are benefited and strengthened by global presence, global engagement, and an outward-looking foreign policy. Isolationism can never be the solution to today's global and multiple challenges. We must see the global campaign that China and Russia are conducting for their cause. Together with like-minded [nations], we must step up to give those who fight for their freedom hope for an alternative path forward.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We live in turbulent times. Authoritarian states constantly challenge the rules-based world order. Russia has set the world on fire through its unjust attack against Ukraine. China's actions in the Taiwan Strait and Iran's crimes against its own population and involvement in a number of crisis hotspots are also examples of this. It has led to accumulated and almost permanent crises.

Security aspects must now be linked to many more political areas than before, such as energy, food, and critical infrastructure. Yes, the list can be made very long.

All this also affects our country, not least through our application to become members of Nato together with Finland.

Madam Speaker! We all feel here a disgust for Putin's full-scale war in Ukraine but also an admiration for all Ukrainians who for an entire year have fought day and night against an aggressor who dreams of recreating a Russian-controlled empire and a sphere of influence of an old Soviet nature. Putin's ambitions extend far beyond Russia's borders and constitute a significant threat to all of Europe, not least towards us here up north. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that Ukraine is also fighting our battle.

Putin has taken many Russian lives, and Russia has violated all the laws that make us human, including the international laws that are supposed to protect the civilian population. The guilty must be held accountable, and the judgment of history will be harsh.

The Swedish government recently announced that Sweden is sending, among other things, the Archer artillery system and the Stridsfordon 90 to Ukraine to give them greater opportunities to defend themselves and expel the attacker. It is gratifying that this is being done with the support of a unanimous Riksdag and solid support from the Swedish people.

The Russian dictator did not expect the strength that the Ukrainian people have shown. He also did not expect the unity that Europe's democracies, together with the USA, have shown through our support for Ukraine. Our support will continue even after Russia has been forced to leave Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea, and all other Ukrainian territory. We will help Ukraine rebuild its country and assist them on the path to membership in the European Union.

Madam Speaker! The Iranian people are persecuted today by their own government. The Revolutionary Guard is the regime's extended arm. They arrest, torture, and oppress Iranian demonstrators, not least women who dare to resist the regime's demands that women be forced to cover their hair and faces.

At the same time as the revolutionary guard oppresses the Iranian population, they sponsor and support Islamist terrorist groups in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and several others. Several countries, including the USA, have therefore already labeled the revolutionary guard as terrorists. It is time for the entire EU circle to do the same.

The Iranian regime has also for several years attempted to manufacture nuclear weapons. This is a threat to not least the state of Israel and its capital Jerusalem. The Western world has believed it could steer Iran's nuclear energy program toward a civilian use through an agreement in exchange for sanctions relief. These negotiations, which are led by the EU, are currently on ice, but they should be concluded even in a formal sense.

Madam Speaker! The needs around our world are enormous. Civil society actors within the aid and development cooperation play a crucial role for thousands of people around our world. They are on the ground in Turkey and Syria and assist those affected by the earthquake. They are in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and provide care to women exposed to violence. In Tanzania, they provide healthcare to the poor.

In connection with the Tidö Agreement, the parties agreed on a new direction for aid. In Bana för biståndet, it is stated that the aid shall be reformed and that the proportion of aid channeled through civil society shall increase.

In this year's state budget, the aid allocation remains high, 56 billion frozen for three years or 0.88 percent of Sweden's gross national income. This means that only Luxembourg provides a larger share than Sweden. The Christian Democrats' goal is, however, to return to the one percent level.

There is another party that also says they want to return to the one percent goal. But I mean that one has lost all credibility when one does not even manage to reach it in its own budget proposal, even though the only ones they needed to negotiate with were themselves.

We Christian Democrats have also pushed through that a cap of 8 percent shall be introduced for how large deductions may be made from the aid for costs for refugee reception in Sweden. In the spring of 2022, the Social Democratic government, without warning, took 17 percent of the aid for deductions for the reception of Ukrainian refugees. With this cap, there will therefore be more money for aid this year than last year.

Madam Speaker! In the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, violent conflicts have been ongoing for many years, severely affecting the civilian population. Gender-based violence is widespread, and sexual violence is a part of the warfare. The situation on the ground is complex, and there are over 120 different rebel groups operating in the country.

The conflicts are due to many things, including illegal trade with mineral deposits, where armed groups often exploit the civilian population to generate income. This has resulted in an increased number of internal refugees in the country. Today, there are more than 5.6 million, which is the largest crisis of its kind on the continent.

In December, an election will take place in the country. But if the unrest continues, there is a risk that the election will be postponed. To ensure the election, actors with a high degree of trust locally are needed who can contribute as local election observers, such as the church and local civil society, which have a great deal of trust among the local population. Here, Sweden can help.

Madam Speaker! I have been in contact with the mayor of Adana and with regional representatives from Gaziantep. These are places that are undergoing very difficult times today. They are grateful for the help that has been facilitated so far, but it is almost impossible to convey how countless buildings have collapsed and left hundreds of thousands of people outside in the snow and cold. They now need winter clothes, tents, mattresses, blankets, stoves, generators and food parcels, and in the long run, much more was needed.

Madam Speaker! I would like to have time to speak about many more things: the EU, Moldova, the Caucasus, the climate, trade, Afghanistan, West Africa, the Horn of Africa and so on. But I will have to return to this in other contexts. Now I want to conclude by thanking the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the foreign policy declaration.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite follow how Magnus Berntsson calculates it so that it results in more money when aid is reduced, but he may have time in later contributions to lay out that text.

I am thinking about Israel, which has now received the most far-right government in the country's history. The corruption-suspected Benjamin Netanyahu has once again regained power, this time with more extreme parties than ever. To put together his government, the extreme parties in the settlement movement have gained power over important areas such as interior, defense, housing, and land issues, so that the settler right can expand the settlements on occupied land in the West Bank and further harass the Palestinians.

Israel's new security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has urged Israel to annex the entire West Bank. Housing Minister Yitzhak Goldknopf argues that the solution to Israel's housing shortage lies in the West Bank. And Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich is the party leader of the ultranationalist party Religious Zionism and is said to have planned a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv in 2005, according to the Israeli security police.

This time, the Israeli people are not silent. In the thousands, people have gathered to demonstrate against the government's proposals to politicize the judiciary, restrict LGBTQ+ rights, discriminate against the Palestinian group in Israel, and increase the oppression against Palestinians in occupied territories.

As chair of the EU, Sweden has a particularly important role in safeguarding international law, human rights, and the international regulatory framework. Sweden should be able to act forcefully to prevent new Israeli settlements from being added on Palestinian land and to ensure that existing settlements are dismantled immediately.

I wonder what the Christian Democrats think about the new Israeli far-right government.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Håkan Svenneling, for the question! In the foreign policy declaration, it is very clear that the government stands behind a two-state solution. It has been a Swedish and European position for a very long time. The Christian Democrats also stand behind a two-state solution. It is very important that negotiations start again and that progress is made in that issue.

As for the current Israeli government, it remains to be seen where it will head. We will follow this closely. It is also important, however, to establish that Israel is a democracy in an area where there actually are not many democracies. It is very clear that it is a functioning democracy. One can see this from the fact that there have been several elections in recent years. It is therefore possible to remove a government that does not follow the democratic rules of the game or respect the will of the people.

Håkan Svenneling knows that the Christian Democrats are strong friends of democracy in the Middle East, but that does not mean that we accept or appreciate everything that the currently sitting government in the country is pursuing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Yes, Israel's problem has not been that they have had too few elections, but rather too many, and above all that Benjamin Netanyahu has constantly been able to exploit the political system to his advantage.

I think it is good that from the side of the Christian Democrats and the government, it is said that one wants to see a two-state solution, even though the conditions for that are very poor right now. It is good that it is said that one wants negotiations. I believe that negotiations are incredibly important in order to also achieve elections in Palestine, where there is a real need to be able to choose one's leaders.

I hope, however, that this government, which contains parties that have at times been all too loyal to Israel's political leadership, also manages to see that the settlements are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and that the occupation must be criticized.

A lot is going to happen in Israel now, especially in the occupied territories in Palestine. If the EU is unable to criticize when EU aid such as schools and preschools are destroyed, there will be problems. But I am worried when I see how much the Christian Democrats are cutting in Palestinian aid, because it will have major consequences, I believe.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! When there is criticism that is relevant, it should be voiced, absolutely. I also hope that Håkan Svenneling can be part of giving criticism in other directions as well when needed.

I was pleased to hear Håkan Svenneling point out here today the fact that there actually has not been any election in the Palestinian territory for a very long time. It is important that we reach a conclusion regarding this. It is also important that we find dialogue moving forward.

It remains to be seen how the way forward will be. We cannot quite predict it, but we need to follow this closely.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! The government that Magnus Berntsson's party is part of has agreed to what must be called a betrayal of aid. The Green Party and the Christian Democrats do not agree on everything, but in aid issues, we have been able to reach an agreement on the importance of global solidarity, fighting poverty and oppression, and pulling our weight as one of the world's richest countries.

Several of us are wondering what has actually happened with the Christian Democrats. It seems as if your party leadership has locked the door and thrown away the key to the humanitarian foundation that the Christian Democrats once stood for.

Despite the Christian Democrats' election promises to preserve the one percent goal, the dismantling has already begun, and it is the world's vulnerable who pay the price. My question to Magnus Berntsson is therefore: Why do you no longer stand up for the one percent goal?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jacob Risberg, for the question and thank you for the kind words in the introduction! They changed a bit along the way, but they were kind in the introduction and were about appreciating our basic view on the aid area, which in large parts coincides with that in Risberg's party.

We want to see a one percent target both in the long term and now, but we are in a government where we have had a negotiation on how we should view this going forward.

Our starting position was very clear, but it is also important what the content of the aid will be. In that regard, we are very satisfied with the negotiation that has been made with the parties regarding the agreement called the Path for Aid. One can say that it is an annex to the Tidö Agreement, and it actually means that we redirect the aid to where it can do the most good.

It means that a larger proportion of the aid will go to civil society. It means that it is impossible for a government to make deductions in the aid that are higher than 8 percent, which has been done in recent years and which has actually bitten into the total sum very significantly.

The content is still what is most important. And the submissions we have received regarding the reform of aid have made us see this as a major way forward. We hope that what we now produce in the reform and the way forward means that more parties will want to stand for a one percent goal in the future.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is sad and embarrassing to hear how the Christian Democrats have unfortunately directly adopted the Moderates' rhetoric regarding aid. Power corrupts, and we see that time and again even in Swedish domestic politics.

Oh, yes, it is a betrayal. It is a betrayal towards the voters in your party who understood the importance of aid, a betrayal towards democracy and freedom fighters in the world, and a betrayal towards those within Swedish politics who still want to preserve global solidarity and humanity as a fundamental pillar in development cooperation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is a pity that Jacob Risberg wrote his second post before he had listened to what I said in my first post and furthermore to what I said in my first response. Had he not done so, perhaps it would have been a different level and a different tone in this post. But we are doing politics, and I am aware of the rules of the game. I nevertheless look forward to continuing to talk about these issues with Jacob Risberg and everyone else moving forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! In the rubble after the earthquake in Turkey, Kurdistan, and Syria, the shock was heard first, followed by the hope for survival and life, which slowly died out as the hours turned into days.

Now the catastrophe remains. It exists in the people who have lost their homes, in the parents who have been forced to bury their children, in the cities that never got the chance to become a society, and in the screams that never reached the surface.

At the same time as the death toll rises, the will to extend a hand also rises. In this debate, I will direct strong criticism towards the government's way of handling Swedish foreign policy. But in the matter of the handling of sending catastrophe relief to the affected areas, we stand on the same side. I hope that we will be able to continue to do so.

Madam Speaker! Next week, Putin's senseless war against Ukraine will have been ongoing for a year. It is a year in which many voices have been silenced, several forever.

It is people who have fled for their lives. It is families who have left the country, which in the midst of peaceful Europe has become a war zone. It is people who have stood on the front line to defend their country and their freedom. It is people who believed that life would be something completely different.

For a year, Ukraine has fought for its freedom, and the world has watched. As days turned into weeks, which turned into months, life changed for everyone living in today's Ukraine. But the war has also changed Sweden and Europe.

What we do and what we do not do will define us as a generation. This requires action. At the same time as we have increased the heavy sanctions against Russia, Europe's fossil fuel dependency feeds the slaughter in Ukraine. We must invest in an accelerated and just transition - immediately. Our support for Ukraine shall continue. We need to do everything in our power to return to a stabilized security situation and begin planning for a sustainable peace. For Ukraine's sake is also ours.

Madam Speaker! It is never possible to win more freedom by dismantling the one who has it. The one who wants to take your freedom will, in fact, always hear when you are ready to compromise on it.

Sweden must continue to pursue a foreign policy as independent as possible and stand up for democracy, human rights and nuclear disarmament. This must apply both outside Nato and on the way into the defense alliance.

The government claims that the goal is to continue to defend international law, democracy, and human rights as a NATO member. But the way the government is showing the way there seems to be the exact opposite. Instead of standing up for the civil and political rights that we claim to protect, we have received a government that blindly crawls for Erdogan.

The government seems ready to restrict freedom of speech and turn a blind eye to the oppression of Kurds in order to fulfill a dictator's bizarre wish list. It is embarrassing. It is time for the Foreign Minister to seriously explain this to the Swedish people: If the price of joining Nato is to sell out the values we want to protect, what are we then going to have Nato to defend?

Madam Speaker! Over the past year, the horrors of the war in Ukraine have etched themselves into our consciousness. At the same time, other conflicts have harvested both human lives and faith in the future, often in silence. In the ears of an oppressive regime, nothing is heard as clearly as the silence of the rest of the world.

It is the silence from the rest of the world that China's Communist Party hears. They hear the silence when the Uyghurs' human rights are swept under the rug, and they see the world's averted gazes.

It is in the silence that Israel brutally expands the occupation of Palestine and spreads its settlement policy without sanctions from the rest of the world. Israel's increasingly bloody occupation of Palestine violates international law, and it is nothing less than a shame that this is happening in silence.

It is in the silence that the children in Yemen die of starvation and war. The appalling reality of lack of food and water that filled the newspapers a few years ago is still ongoing.

It is in the silence that the struggle for a free and democratic Western Sahara continues every day. And when the EU trades with Morocco, human rights become a devalued currency.

It is in the silence that environmental activists in Brazil and Colombia are imprisoned, kidnapped, and murdered. It is in the silence that conflicts that have lasted for decades continue, that humanitarian catastrophes are prolonged, and that people live in states of famine and crisis - in Tigray, Somalia, Somaliland, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mali, and many more. These are conflicts that drive over 100 million people into flight. Then Sweden's government chooses to persuade the EU to build even higher walls.

Madam Speaker! It is in silence that people, democracies, and rights movements die.

In normal cases, there is much one wants, but one is hindered by circumstances. In the government's case, the greatest obstacle is that one does not seem to want to contribute to a better world at all.

When poverty in the world increases, Sweden reduces its aid. When the Taliban expel women from the country's universities, the government analyzes that we need a less feminist foreign policy. When Erdogan consistently acts anti-democratically, the Foreign Minister relies on a definition of democracy that we discarded long ago. When armed conflicts around the world are escalated, the government reduces the aid to strengthen democracy and build stable states governed by the rule of law. When journalists and environmental activists around the world are hit by increasing threats and violence, the government reduces the democracy aid and the support for civil society.

Our Sweden can be better – if we want better. A green foreign policy is a policy that listens to the world's common needs, sees the challenges we all face, and never lets silence win.

It is a policy that strengthens international institutions, that invests in international development work, and that puts the rights of women and girls first.

It is a policy that dares to make Agenda 2030 a reality and that stands firm when others want to put their own interests ahead of what is our common interest.

We want to use the aid to accelerate the phasing out of fossil energy and enable investments in renewables to also reach the very poorest. Sweden shall be a leading force in the global climate transition and invest in climate and environmental work in poor countries.

Sweden shall use its voice within the EU to set sharper requirements and tougher conditions in Sweden's and the EU's foreign and trade policy to drive forward global climate work, preserve biodiversity, promote democracy and human rights, and reduce global inequalities.

Sweden can be and do all of this. But the government chooses to refrain.

Madam Speaker! Woman. Life. Freedom.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: Thank you. Eight minutes have passed. The member may give a short conclusion.)

The tireless struggle for democracy and freedom that is currently taking place in Iran places demands on us - demands to never meet a freedom movement with silence, demands to stand firm against fanatics and never back down a single millimeter.

We cannot afford to back down now. Woman, life, freedom - in Tehran, in Kyiv, in Kabul and in every place where people defy the silence for the sake of freedom.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I could stand here today and say a lot of fine things about how I want Sweden to handle foreign policy and about how I want to safeguard democracy and human rights.

I could speak about how skewed it is that women in Afghanistan are not allowed to go to school, that they are not allowed to get an education, that half of the population in Afghanistan has had their lives seized now that the Taliban have taken power again.

I could speak about the situation in Iran and about how I am approached daily by people who want to explain to me what life looks like there now, how the revolution continues to a very high degree despite mass arrests, torture, and executions, how the women go out on the streets and protest. I also hear from the same people about how the regime, with the help of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, keeps the population in check, in fear, and under control.

I could speak about how many I have met who testify that the people in Iran live under terror and that they are asking us in the West for one thing. They want the Revolutionary Guard to be classified as a terrorist organization. In that way, the feared Guard would find it more difficult to operate, and in that way, the regime is made weaker. I could also speak about how complex such a measure is and what obstacles there are for it today.

I could speak for a long time about the situation of the Swedish political prisoners Dawit Isaak and Gui Minhai, who are imprisoned because they have fought for freedom of speech.

I could also speak about Taiwan and their situation, about their plea to the West for help against China's pressure, or if we should call it oppression, about how the EU should immediately work for Taiwan to be included in international organizations such as WHO and other UN bodies and for an investment agreement with Taiwan to be in place as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker! There is, however, a difference between words and actions. There is a difference between wanting and doing. Sometimes will clashes with possibilities, just as provocation can clash with freedom of speech. It is problematic to challenge major nations such as China and Iran, because there is much at stake, not least economically.

Sweden's foreign policy shall primarily aim to preserve Sweden's freedom and independence and protect the country from threats and pressures. We do this today by having good diplomacy and good relations with our neighboring countries and not least by now, when we finally also have a political majority for it, joining the defense alliance Nato. I am not particularly worried that Sweden will not be on its way towards full membership. It is we, and then Sweden shall, of course, fully support the defense alliance in the way it considers Sweden can best contribute.

It is probably no one who has missed that Sweden currently holds the presidency in the EU. I hope that more people see the opportunities that exist when we work more together with countries that share our values. It is indeed through the EU that we best show solidarity with Ukraine, manage the climate crisis, and facilitate international trade, which contributes to our prosperity.

In times of uncertainty, one easily turns inward and isolates oneself from the outside world. In the USA, for example, we see how Biden pumps in tax money to protect his own industry. Around the world, free trade is being restricted. It makes us all poorer. If we are to get out of the economic crisis, the world needs to open up instead of closing itself off.

Madam Speaker! Swedish foreign policy is also about solidarity. We have a tradition of being a country that helps the vulnerable. We still are, and we shall continue to be. We Liberals are now following the government's new aid policy with interest, where the strategies are to become clearer and the interventions more effective.

It is important that the aid is used correctly. It is important that the food reaches hungry mouths, that schools can be built and that organizations in countries where free elections or the principles of the rule of law are lacking can be given the opportunity to influence in order to change this. It is important.

We have a world where many need help and where everyone wants more. It is understandable. I listen to the civil society organizations that do a great job out there in poverty and misery. I also see their work. As a liberal, I naturally also want to do more, but I also believe that when the new aid policy is evaluated in a couple of years, it will show that the help may even have become better. Let us at least work together for that!

One of the areas where Sweden has truly moved from words to action is the situation in Ukraine. There, we stand up partly by contributing financially, partly by contributing humanitarily and with military equipment and expertise, most recently with the Archer artillery system. Much, much more can, however, be done.

We in the Committee on Foreign Affairs have had the privilege of meeting several different delegations from Ukraine, and we have listened to them. Last week, it was a parliamentarian and former minister from Ukraine who visited Stockholm, and when she spoke about the situation in her home country, she had difficulty holding back tears. There were many reasons for this. Among others, she told that her husband was killed in the war last year.

Also in this delegation was a male lawyer who works with anti-corruption in the country. He, like most men in Ukraine, is now actively participating in the war. He had only one eye. He had lost his right eye when his military vehicle drove over a mine and exploded. He needed an advanced operation and rehabilitation but returned to the front despite that to continue fighting.

The war came there and then very close, and we were taken by listening to their stories. They said one thing that at least moved me: We do not want to belong to Russia; we want to belong to the EU.

When one thinks about what that sentence actually says, one understands what the war is about for the Ukrainians. They are fighting for their existence. They are fighting to not become a part of Russia.

I believe we have a duty to care about those who are fighting for their freedom and also actually fighting for Europe's freedom - and for our freedom here in Sweden. Ukraine deserves all the support it can get, not only now but also after the war, by rebuilding the country and strengthening democracy. Of course, in the long run, we shall in all ways help Ukraine to become a full member of the EU.

The Liberals are proud that Sweden has left behind the time when one refused to take sides in international conflicts and could not distinguish between who were our enemies and who were our allies. Ukraine's victory over Russia is the overwhelmingly most important political issue in our time, and Sweden shall contribute to making it a reality.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! It was a strong conclusion, and one truly wants to concur with what Martin Melin says.

Martin Melin also mentioned the aid in his speech and said that in a few years we will see fantastic results. I am not as convinced, but we shall see in a few years.

I requested the floor because the Liberal Fredrik Malm and I, in October 2019, joined forces and presented a proposal that Sweden should stop arms exports to Turkey on the grounds of the country's military attack against the Kurdish-dominated area of Afrin in northern Syria. The proposal received support from all parties in the Riksdag and led to Sweden's arms exports to Turkey being stopped.

When Sweden was going to apply for membership in Nato, it became clear that the halt of arms exports to Turkey was a problem for approval. Turkey's foreign minister took up the matter with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. A few weeks later, the then Foreign Minister Ann Linde announced that Sweden would now export weapons to Turkey. I perceived that the Liberals then supported that decision.

Another change in the criticism of Turkey, which I can find in the Liberals' motions, is, if I have understood correctly, that the Liberals' policy implies that you want to introduce a democracy requirement within Nato. In a motion from 2019, you were very clear. You wrote that existing member states should be reviewed and that it should result in Turkey leaving Nato. You even wrote that Turkey's membership undermines Nato's democratic credibility and also the organization's security.

In a new motion that you wrote in 2021, you chose a different, somewhat more diffuse wording, namely that it is something that could be applied more stringently to members, for example Turkey.

I wonder why the Liberals have shifted in their criticism of Turkey. Why are you so soft and lenient in your tone towards Erdogan now?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I am new to the job. I have been here for three months, and I do not know all the motions that the Liberals have raised in recent years. Unfortunately! I apologize.

But I have had close contact with Fredrik Malm, and I have spoken a lot with Fredrik Malm.

The whole issue of Turkey, arms deliveries and Kurds is problematic and complex. I do not have the solution to this, and I do not believe that Håkan Svenneling has the solution either. I also do not believe that the solution is to run around with a PKK flag, and I believe that Håkan Svenneling agrees with that.

I shall try to do something as unusual as answering a question. Again, I must say that this is complex. It is about diplomacy, and I believe that Håkan Svenneling is aware of that. It is a give and take.

No one likes a country that is undemocratic. But is Turkey undemocratic? We heard the Foreign Minister say that there are free elections in Turkey, and there are opposition parties. In that sense, Turkey actually falls under the designation of democracy. Then one can discuss whether there are degrees of hell, but we consider Turkey to be a democracy. But that does not mean that one has to like those who lead the democracies.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! The problem with the government's and also Member Melin's definition of democracy is that many leaders would be included under the concept of democracy. We can talk about Putin in Russia, and we can talk about Lukashenko in Belarus - to name a few. We can find plenty of leaders who at some point in their lives have been elected, only to then move in an authoritarian direction and shrink democracy.

I believe that the Liberals could play an important role in the government because you stand up so much for democratic requirements and the concept of democracy. Then you have ended up in a conflict of goals that you have not quite managed to resolve. I believe that you could have an important role in also managing to criticize Turkey for the shrinking democracy. We know that the opposition risks being both dissolved and imprisoned during this spring. We do not know if they intend to hold elections or continue to have a state of emergency. Here, the Liberals must stand up for democracies in the government. I do not think the Foreign Minister is managing that job as it is now, and I believe that Martin Melin is better suited. But he might enjoy being on a deserted island more than in the Government Offices.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I won when I was on the island, so it went quite well.

I can guarantee Håkan Svenneling that we liberals will ensure that we are the liberal voice in the bourgeois government, with the support of SD. We closely monitor all decisions that are made, and we are on them. Believe me! Some issues are bigger and some are smaller, and the big issues are tough.

The Liberals are a small party, but believe me, we are like a terrier. The Liberals are also a watchdog. We monitor to ensure that everything is handled correctly and rightly, and we will never yield to democracies that are not democracies.

But right now we stand where we stand, and unfortunately, we will have to do that for a while.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Martin Melin for his speech.

I was somewhat inspired to ask a question based on what I listened to. I had previously heard the Christian Democrats speak well of the terror classification of the IRGC. I also heard the Sweden Democrats speak in favor of this. Now I heard Martin Melin do the same.

Now we suddenly hear that a large part of the government stands up for this. Then I expect that it is not just about wanting, but about actually doing, that is to say, making the terror classification a reality. It is naturally an extremely important signal during the EU presidency. Many are looking at how we handle this.

Is Martin Melin and the Liberals in the government? Is this an important issue where the Liberals are a terrier to ensure that many here in the chamber together push the issue through? Here it is not just a question of the Liberals, but there are more parties in the government.

I also became a bit curious. It may be a matter of phrasing, and in that case, I am indulgent toward it. But that the Liberals are following the government's aid policy with excitement feels a bit hesitant from my way of interpreting the Liberals' strong position in the election campaign. It is, therefore, about standing up for the one percent goal and maintaining made investments. In that case, it feels a bit weak to just follow along with excitement. There, I want to give Martin Melin an opportunity to clarify.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the aid issue. It is no secret that we Liberals want a one percent level on aid. But we also have a responsibility to take. I refer to what Morgan Johansson said earlier, namely that we must take the state budget into account. There are many holes that need to be filled.

When a large number of refugees flee from oppression, misery, and poverty, we cannot just open the door and say that they are welcome here, but we must also take care of them when they are here. It costs money. I do not like the idea of stacking construction sheds on top of each other in an industrial area and filling them with refugees so that we can then think we are doing a good job. Money is needed to take care of refugees who come to Sweden, not just to receive but to take care of. It costs money, and then one cannot put all the money on only aid, but then one must also put money on taking care of the refugees who come to Sweden. In my world, it is about looking at the entire state budget. Where is the money needed? Then 0.88 percent remains. That is 56 billion, which is a terrifyingly large amount of money.

I believe we all in here would have wanted to help the whole world with much more money. But, as Morgan Johansson said, we have a state budget to take into account.

Yes, the terror classification of the IRGC is something we are discussing. Again: Here we have the will. But I have also read and heard how complex it is purely legally. From what I understand, it has been possible to terror-classify certain individuals within the guard, but getting an entire organization terror-classified is apparently very complex. I do not want to precede how it should go before I say yes, we want it. But we have a will to do it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I hope that will means that the Liberals will be a terrier. I wish that Martin Melin would say that he intends to be the terrier in the discussion on this.

We are all familiar with the fact that there are other considerations and other issues that play a role, but here it is about truly seeing the terror that the freedom-loving Iranian people are subjected to and the abuses that occur. Then one must also act, not just want to.

Madam Speaker! I heard a reference to Morgan Johansson regarding the state budget. Yes, there are different ways to value and prioritize, and I understand that one must compromise. But it is still important that you in the Liberals do not just go along but actually stand up for what you promised.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I agree with Kerstin Lundgren - it is important that one stands up for what one says and what one promises. It is my ambition to do so.

But my ambition is also to ensure that the refugees who come to Sweden do well here in Sweden. We have invested extra in the municipalities to be able to help with just this. Among other things, refugee children in vulnerable areas shall be able to be integrated into outdoor life. That is something that I like very much. As a police officer, I see how refugee children are drawn into gang wars, and I do not want to see that. Therefore, it is an important investment for me.

Yes, we will be a terrier on this issue. But where we are right now, we stand behind our Foreign Minister and the policy that the government has now presented. That is where we stand right now. But we are that terrier, believe me!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! In a world with war in Ukraine and devastating consequences of the earthquakes in Turkey, Syria, and Kurdistan, the Israeli military takes the opportunity to expand its occupation of Palestine and spread its settlement policy.

As previously known, the government has significantly reduced aid to many states and organizations around the world. The Liberals' spokesperson Fredrik Malm has expressed joy over the reduction of aid to Palestine, which he believes goes to "the corrupt Palestinian power apparatus."

Several of us quickly pointed out that Fredrik Malm was speaking falsely. Only 2 percent of the Swedish aid to Palestine has gone to the Palestinian Authority and then to the environmental authority EQA, which has cooperated with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. The remaining aid, i.e., 98 percent of the aid to Palestine, goes to Palestinian civil society organizations working for human rights and democratic development and against corruption, as well as to the UN system as part of Swedish core support.

Madam Speaker! My question to the Liberals is therefore this. Why do you oppose Palestine's chance to build up a democratic society by significantly reducing the aid?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I cannot answer for what Fredrik Malm has said. I can only speak about what I myself think and believe.

When it comes to reduced aid, it does not have to mean that it is just because it is Palestine. It can be about making an assessment of where the aid is best needed, and then there may be other places where it is best needed. I am not saying that is the case, but I am saying that it must be taken into consideration.

When it comes to Palestine, I am very conflicted about money going to organizations, regardless of who is in power. Is it Hamas that rules, or is it the Palestinian Authority that rules? Who is it that rules down there, and who are these organizations targeting? I have not seen that.

Again: One must be critical of sources, but from one side you can hear "no, it doesn't work well - these organizations have some kind of grounding here or there". From the other side you are told "no, that's not how it is". I actually don't know why.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Before I give my closing remarks, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank Foreign Minister Billström, who has taken the time to stay through all the main proceedings. I am very grateful for that, so thank you to the Foreign Minister! I did not have time to say it earlier in my speech.

Significantly reducing aid to Palestine is not the solution to the conflict, because Israel occupies Palestine. Israel has the primary responsibility for what happens in the occupied territories, regardless of who rules Palestine, and our aid has primarily gone to civil rights organizations.

Miljöpartiet wants to see the government take a stand against the occupation by introducing sanctions against Israel. Violating international law should entail a consequence. If this is yet another area where the Liberals no longer have a backbone, I can be nothing other than disappointed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Regarding how Israel behaves in the region, an investigation is currently being conducted by the UN, where they are looking at how Israel has behaved, not least in the West Bank. I do not think we should precede it, but we must see what they come to - how it resolves itself, quite simply.

I do not believe that we in this chamber will be able to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine by talking about it. I actually do not believe that, if I am to be completely honest. I leave it to the mediators and diplomats within the UN.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! In a world where nearly 700 million people live in extreme poverty, in a world where only 14 percent of the world's population live in free democracies, in a world with 55 ongoing armed conflicts, we must work together for a safer and better world.

The global challenges will not diminish. The effects of climate change are clearly visible already today, and they will only get worse. Already today, we have extreme heat and drought which result in dreadful famine.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the acute consequences reached far beyond Ukraine's borders. In Africa and parts of the Middle East, the hijacked wheat deliveries led to acute famine. Transport costs have increased, and together with increased food and energy costs, this has exacerbated an already catastrophic situation.

According to Save the Children, a person died of hunger every 48 seconds in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia in 2022. World Food Programme describes how one must choose to forgo giving food to the hungry in order to give food to the starving - how resources are only sufficient to handle the acute so that one does not have the opportunity to work on the underlying problems. Instead of counteracting famine, one must focus on saving those who are close to dying of starvation.

When countries like Sweden reduce core funding, the UN organizations' ability to act where they are needed most is also limited. With famine, violent regimes, and human suffering, one consequence follows another.

Madam Speaker! In Africa south of the Sahara, violent extremism and terrorism have increased sharply in recent years. While the number of deaths linked to terrorism has generally decreased globally over the last five years, it has doubled in this region. Almost half of the deaths linked to terrorism in 2021 occurred precisely there.

In order to be able to counter this development, we must understand what it is caused by. Therefore, UNDP, the UN's development program, has produced a solid report which was released last week. The report clearly shows how socio-economic factors affect the growth of violent extremist groups. The report shows that the primary reason why people today join these groups is that they then get a job and an income. Following that are events such as violations of human rights. In third place, religious motives are cited as the reason why people choose to join these extremist groups. Not even one in five states this as their main reason. The extreme poverty, oppression, and the violations of human rights that many people are subjected to in this region thus lead to violent extremism flourishing.

Through aid and through civil society, the UN and other international interventions, we can invest in education, in children and young people, and in good living conditions in order to strengthen human rights. This is precisely what UNDP also proposes to counter and prevent violent extremism. This should, after all, be in Sweden's interest?

At times when most things are going the wrong way, we must safeguard and strengthen the tools we have. The UN is our opportunity to work together to find common solutions. It is our common tool for creating peace. If democratic states back away in the UN, other states step forward. The UN is what its member states make it. If Sweden does not prioritize the work in the UN, other countries will take that place – states that do not believe in the rule of law or the UN Charter.

Therefore, it is worrying to read in the foreign policy declaration that the government is changing course, that it is Swedish interests that are the core of the policy. The world is interconnected, and what happens in one part affects what happens in another. It is not the right time to reduce our international engagement, and it is not the right time to only focus on our immediate neighborhood.

Madam Speaker! In both Afghanistan and Iran, we see today what can best be described as gender apartheid - how women's lives and freedom are oppressed in all areas. In Afghanistan, women are losing right after right. When Sweden cuts back on aid and, for example, reduces the support to Svenska Afghanistankommittén, it is the absolutely most vulnerable women and children who are affected.

Madam Speaker! In Iran, women have shown immense courage over the past months as they have protested against the oppressive regime, a courage that has been met with horrific brutality while simultaneously uniting the population. People in all population groups and age groups and in all parts of the country share the will for change and the will to live in freedom and democracy. In pictures from Iran today, we see a changed cityscape. We see women who bravely walk the streets without the mandatory veil.

Now Sweden must show leadership. We must support the Iranian population. We must, as the chair of the EU, show courage and push for the EU to blacklist the Revolutionary Guard.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Alexandra Völker, for an interesting speech. I have noted that the Social Democrats have had a relatively high tail-end in Iran issues since they became an opposition party. The Social Democrats' track record regarding Iran is hardly something I would have been particularly proud of if I had been a Social Democrat. But that is a completely different matter.

I also noted that Alexandra Völker concluded her speech by saying that it is desired that the IRGC be blacklisted. I think this is very positive. The question, however, is whether the Social Democrats will support the Sweden Democrats' motion on exactly this when it comes up for committee consideration later this autumn.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! I will turn it around directly: Will the Sweden Democrats, as a support party to the government, act in the EU Committee to ensure that this government gathers support and actively works to terror-brand the revolutionary guard?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I note that Alexandra Völker does not answer the question of whether she will pursue the policy that she actually claims to stand behind.

Regarding the EU committee, the Sweden Democrats have been very clear. We support a terror listing of the IRGC from both the Swedish and EU sides. We have also pushed the government for the sharpest possible sanctions and the sharpest possible measures against the IRGC. If consensus can be reached within the EU, this is positive, and we know that the government is doing what it can to try to create this consensus and ensure that it happens.

But, again, I would wish that Alexandra Völker, in her closing remark, could answer the question of whether one will vote yes or no to the Sverigedemokraternas motion on banning the IRGC, when it comes up for consideration in the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! As I believe both I and the member are aware, it is in the EU Committee that Swedish EU policy is established. I can only state that, based on how the majority conditions look in the Swedish Riksdag, if the Sweden Democrats had taken a different position in the EU Committee, Sweden's position on the issue would also have been completely different at the EU meeting.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Finally, we have a new government in Sweden that looks at results instead of etiquette in foreign policy. For far too long, we have seen how the Social Democrats as a governing party, and also their coalition parties, have repeatedly cared significantly more about how their work is described than what actual policy they deliver and what result their choices yield.

We see it when it comes to the so-called feminist foreign policy, and we see it when it comes to aid. Despite repeatedly promoting Islamist, women-oppressing forces, one has traveled from country to country and claimed to have prioritized the well-being and freedom of women and girls. This has not been true.

We also see it when it comes to aid, where one has proudly stood up for the so-called one percent goal. What has been important for the Social Democrats and company has not been what the money went to, but that Svensson has sent sufficiently large parts of his hard-earned tax crowns abroad. This irresponsible generosity has resulted in support for everything from Islamists to homophobic forces or in large, black bureaucratic holes. I hope that this is over now.

Madam Speaker! The ongoing revolution in Iran is now approaching its fifth month. The protests are the largest ever since the Islamists, through the revolution in 1979, created one of the world's most harsh dictatorships.

It pleases me, as someone who has had a long-standing commitment to this issue, that more people have begun to raise their voices, but it frightens me that so little is being done from the political side. The Iranian judiciary's brutality and torture with gross violence, genital mutilations, electric shocks, and rape have, in combination with threats and outright executions, contributed to a culture of silence that characterizes the entire Iranian society. All of this contributes to the fact that the regime, despite enormous resistance from the well-educated and relatively secular population, has succeeded in maintaining power.

Given this knowledge, Sweden has stood out as an odd example regarding its Iran policy. The Swedish Social Democrats laid the foundation early for their flaccidity and naivety towards this villainous regime. Swedish authorities, with reference to an alleged belief in dialogue, have done precisely what the Iranian regime's lobbyists have desired, and the shameful policy of appeasement has been administered year after year. We see how lobbyists, perhaps disguised as researchers, have been able to play an important role in the Swedish Iran debate.

The belief that so-called reformers in Iran could turn this development into something better has had devastating consequences. The latest reformist president, Rohani, even ran for election on speeches about introducing a charter for the establishment of civil rights. But he continued, after gaining power, with abuses against the population and set new records in the number of executions. The so-called reformers are, in short and good terms, an inseparable part of the same loathsome and rotten system. It is a system that lacks legitimacy and should end up on the scrap heap of history.

Madam Speaker! To return to what I began with: The change of government in the autumn created a hope that Sweden would finally break with the Social Democrats' spineless and naive stance on this issue. It is extra important now when we are the chair of the EU.

The Sweden Democrats have pushed for the government to stand out within the framework of EU cooperation and thereby create maximum pressure against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Given its complete lack of respect for fundamental freedoms and rights, where not least persons with deviating political views, women, and minorities are subjected to systematic and state-subsidized abuses, we cannot tolerate the current passivity.

The Sweden Democrats have also – sadly as the only party – put forward sharp proposals with several points for a significantly better and sharper Iran policy. I sincerely hope that more join in when these proposals seriously land here in the Riksdag. For the sake of clarity, I thought I would list some of the proposals we have put forward: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard IRGC shall be blacklisted in Sweden and the entire EU. The nuclear deal JCPOA with Iran shall be scrapped. Agents of the Iranian regime engaged in intelligence activities in Sweden shall be deported. Sharp sanctions shall be directed against both Iranian power holders and their close relatives. Tribunals shall be established to ensure that representatives of the Iranian regime are brought to justice. In addition to this, Madam Speaker, the Imam Ali Mosque in Järfälla, which today is used as the Iranian regime's spy and propaganda center in Scandinavia, must be closed immediately and the imam deported.

The Swedish stance towards Iran has for all too long been characterized by a combination of naivety and cowardice. That must end now! I can promise that this is an issue that I will not let go. The government should once and for all settle the legacy of the Social Democrats' Iran policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Markus Wiechel is speaking about support for women in Iran. I agree that it is important to support the women in Iran. But there are women in other parts of the world who also need support, for example in Afghanistan, Guatemala and Myanmar. Then one can ask: Why do you want to reduce the aid as much as you want to?

You have previously, from the Sweden Democrats' side, said that you want to halve the aid. That would truly mean major cuts in aid to, for example, equality and women in many parts of the world. Now that we see how equality and democracy are regressing and poverty is increasing, aid is needed more than ever. Do you still stand by halving the aid in this difficult situation?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for this pressing issue. Not least for the women in Afghanistan, we see how terrifying it has become now when they are not even granted the right to education. When it comes to aid, we look at results rather than quantity: how much money is invested in different projects or in aid in this case. We think it is positive if one can make a big difference in the world, but the most important thing is what the money goes toward and not how much money is used.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for that answer! But the aid will not become better or more effective if you halve it, if you cut it drastically.

We need more support and more aid in this difficult situation when we see a regression in so many different areas, not least regarding equality, for example as a result of the pandemic, all around the world. In that case, Sweden as a wealthy country needs to stand up for aid and support democracy development and equality in the world, and we do not do that by cutting back on the aid.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! Once again, I note that the member is focusing on how much money is given in aid. As has been said, it can be very good if the money is spent on the right things, but that is not always the case.

Something that I think is very positive now with the new government is that the positions of Minister for Development Cooperation and Minister for Trade are being merged into one position, which can mean great change, not least for all female entrepreneurs in poor countries who often take very great responsibility for the family's livelihood and for society in general. I would say that is deeply underestimated when we look at Swedish development cooperation policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I am completely stuck on this issue regarding the IRGC and a potential terror labeling, and I must feel that we are in the same room.

I have experienced that in the Committee on Foreign Affairs there has actually been a broad consensus between SD and Centerpartiet that there should be a terror designation of the IRGC. Then it came to the EU Committee, and there, as I have understood it, SD has been completely silent. I was present at the latest meeting where the IRGC was raised. The issue had then been dealt with in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, where SD had been very clear. Then it came up in the EU Committee, and there not a word was said. Now I wonder: Have I been somewhere else entirely?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have sat in the same meetings as Member Anna Lasses in the EU Committee, and I have not been silent. There are minutes to look at if one wishes to see them, and they are public. I have been very clear in our position when it comes to the IRGC: we wish for them to be blacklisted as terrorists. It is correct as the Member says that in our position in the Foreign Affairs Committee, we pushed for the government to adopt the toughest possible stance towards the IRGC.

If this then means that from the Swedish side one is to resist and stand alone or almost alone in that position, I do not see that as something that moves the issue forward. On the contrary, I think that one should push to blacklist the IRGC and create unity within the EU for that. If it is such that it is not possible, it must be borne from the Swedish side. But a certain stance in the EU Committee that makes no difference – that fails.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Okay, but did I understand correctly that in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, it has been very clear that there should be a terror branding, and that was the point, while in the EU Committee, one has stood behind the government's significantly vaguer line where it is said that one should not be against a terror branding?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have been firm in both the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the EU Committee. In the EU Committee, we succeeded in getting the government to take the toughest possible stance towards the IRGC and to investigate the possibilities of reaching a consensus within the EU to be able to classify the organization as a terrorist group.

I would like to have an answer as to whether we will proceed with this and will vote yes to the Sweden Democrats' motion regarding the IRGC terror list when it comes up in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The member cannot answer now, but she is welcome to reflect on this and return to it in her statement.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! I now have six minutes at my disposal. Six minutes is too short a time to provide a comprehensive overview of the world.

There is undeniably much to address in a foreign policy debate. How do we best strengthen the transatlantic link? How do we best prepare the EU to strengthen our competitiveness and ability to meet future crises? How do we relate to the increased influence of authoritarian states globally? How do we strengthen human rights and democracy? How do we achieve more free trade and increased prosperity? How can we best support the brave people in Iran? How can we best contribute to helping and alleviating the immense distress in Turkey and Syria after the earthquake? And how can we increase safety and security in our part of Europe?

Madam Speaker! We live in a very restless world. The Prime Minister has expressed that we live in a time that is the most uncertain since the Second World War. Russia's war of invasion against Ukraine has made everyone realize that what we previously only feared has now happened – war in Europe.

Since time is limited, I will focus in my speech today on the war in Ukraine. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is not only illegal, but it is also unprovoked. Ukraine has a right under international law to defend itself, and we have a moral obligation to help Ukraine defend itself and save lives.

The human suffering in Ukraine is immense. The Russian soldiers do not only attack military targets but also launch full-scale attacks against civilians and civil infrastructure. As in many wars and conflicts, sexual violence is also used as a weapon. In the Riksdag, we just before Christmas had visits from several civil society organizations from Ukraine who told us that the number of pregnant women is now increasing drastically as a result of all the rapes.

We have heard about children being kidnapped from their parents and taken away to Russia. Houses are bombed, the energy supply is bombed and the BB is bombed.

Over 70,000 suspected war crimes have been registered since February 24 last year, and we have learned place names and seen images that we will not forget.

The Ukrainian people have not only had their country invaded. To quote a head of the UNHCR, they have had their lives and their dreams for the future invaded. Families are being torn apart, and those who on February 23 last year worked as yoga instructors, lawyers or photographers are now fighting at the front for their country and for all Ukrainians' freedom and lives.

Madam Speaker! If Ukraine wins the war, there will be peace, but if one believes that a peace on Russia's terms means peace, I think one is deceiving oneself. Many of us fear that a peace on Russia's terms only means a pause before they decide on the next attack in any of the countries that Russia claims belong to its sphere of influence.

Ukraine is therefore not only fighting for its own freedom, but they are fighting for all of Europe's freedom and security. Sweden, the EU and the entire democratic world must continue to support Ukraine, and the support must arrive as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker! Just as it is important that Ukraine wins the war, it is equally important that Russia is held accountable for its crimes – for crimes of aggression and for all systematic war crimes that have been and are being committed in Ukraine.

Madam Speaker! Let me say a few words about the Swedish presidency in the EU. As the presiding country, we have as our absolute main task to unite the EU for as large and strong a support as possible for Ukraine - humanitarily, economically and militarily, to unite the EU for further sanction packages against Russia, to unite the EU in the work to be able to hold those responsible for war crimes accountable and to provide support to Ukraine in their reform work to approach an EU membership.

That Ukraine, in the midst of a burning war, is implementing reforms to take steps toward EU membership is immensely impressive. This must be noted, and it is of crucial importance that Ukraine feels our support and that there is a future for Ukraine in the European Union and in the democratic community and friendship that we share with one another.

Madam Speaker! Ukraine's cause is ours. We must continue to stand by the side of the Ukrainian people, and it is of enormous importance that we here in the Riksdag are united in our support for Ukraine.

Ukraine will for a long time be the largest recipient country of Swedish aid, and Ukraine shall feel that the Swedish people and the entire Swedish Riksdag stand on Ukraine's side.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm and John E Weinerhall (both M) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the floor. Magdalena Thuresson did not mention the aid, but I still want to bring it up.

Not only is the government cutting aid at a time when it is needed most and abandoning the one percent goal, but they are also restructuring the aid so that it will to a greater extent benefit Swedish business and Swedish interests. To promote Swedish exports through more tied aid, increased return migration, and reduced migration is not good aid.

Good aid is long-term and should be based on the recipients' needs and perspectives, according to the framework that exists today. Does the Moderaterna believe that Sweden should follow these agreements when it comes to the principles for aid, and does the government want to ensure that the initiative on trade within aid strengthens local markets and especially small-scale producers and sustainable production?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, for the question!

Aid is a very important foreign policy tool, not least for alleviating distress and preventing death during major humanitarian disasters, for example the horrific earthquake in Turkey and Syria. But it is not aid first and foremost that leads to development, but rather economic development and trade. That is why it is so important to create greater synergies between aid policy and development policy.

The government has higher ambitions than to focus on paying out a certain sum of money. It is about the content and what we do. The government has very high ambitions for this expenditure area.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

To drastically cut aid and abandon the one percent goal hardly gives a better and more effective aid, on the contrary. And to favor Swedish trade and Swedish interests at the expense of aid is also not a good aid.

Of course, trade issues can play an important role for development, but then it must be aid based on the recipients' needs, not based on Swedish interests. Tied aid and aid initiatives based on the donor countries' export promotion give, according to studies from the OECD among others, poorer aid results. It is also a much more expensive aid. This is poorly consistent with the words about effective aid.

The international community has for decades had agreements to refrain from tied aid. Do the Moderaterna share that view?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that I do not agree with certain parts of Lotta Johnsson Fornarve's reply. We believe that aid will become better if one focuses on result goals instead of on disbursement goals. We believe, therefore, unlike Vänsterpartiet, that aid will become better by us moving the focus away from the disbursement of 1 percent of GNI and instead focusing on content.

When it comes to tied aid, conditional aid, and being able to set requirements on aid, there is no conflict between the goal for the expenditure area, that aid should work towards better conditions for people in poverty and oppression, and that we can choose which cooperation partners we have and which countries we have projects with and, for example, be prepared to review aid to countries that refuse to take in their own citizens. There is no conflict there.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I also intended to focus on the aid. And I would first like to ask a question about the false contradiction that the Moderaterna are playing up between how large the aid is and how effective and good the aid is.

If I take a piece of paper that illustrates the aid in Sweden and then tear off a piece, has the part that has become smaller become better? It has become smaller; that is what I see. Has the aid, which the paper illustrates, become more effective? No, it has become smaller.

Just because resources are removed from aid, it does not automatically become more efficient. The Moderates are playing up a conflict between the blocs, as if someone in here is against efficient aid. We are all for efficient aid that yields results for the world's poor. And it can yield more results if it is larger than if it is smaller.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! Those who only remove resources from aid are the Social Democrats, who do so in their budget motion. They say they stand up for 1 percent of GNI, but they allocate 0.91 percent of GNI to aid. And they propose absolutely no reforms at all for how this expenditure area should be improved.

Olle Thorell is a piece of paper, and I thank you for the illustrative setup. But it is not about the money, it is about what one does. And you propose no reforms at all to streamline and renew this expenditure area. Everything shall be exactly as it has always been. We want to focus on content and not on getting rid of exactly a certain sum of money.

Mr. Speaker, I can state that those who choose to treat aid as a budget regulator are the Social Democrats.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. We Social Democrats stand up for the principle that Sweden shall allocate one percent of its wealth to aid for poor countries in the world. That is how it is. In our shadow budget, we allocate more money than the government for aid for the current year. And we say that we will restore the aid to the one percent level when we return to government power, just as we did after the 90s crisis, when we had temporarily abandoned the one percent level and took step by step in budget after budget and came back to the one percent level. We will do that again.

It is fake news when the Moderaterna are now trying to paint a picture that there is a cross-bloc agreement to give up the one percent goal. That is not true.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! I and everyone else who reads the Social Democrats' budget motion can observe that they say one thing but do another.

If we allow ourselves to focus on the content, which we focus on all too rarely when we talk about aid, I can state that there is not a single reform. Olle Thorell is welcome to present a single proposal in his speech later to develop, renew and improve this expenditure area. So far, we have not seen anything of the sort from the Socialdemokraterna.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Magdalena Thuresson for a good speech.

I intended to ask a few questions about the dialogue with civil society and the business community, which we have discussed back and forth. Civil society and I myself still think that this dialogue is highly rudimentary. Two hours of mingling, to which we members of Parliament were, moreover, not invited, can hardly be called a clear dialogue.

Now I wonder how Magdalena Thuresson would like to see this dialogue begin to live again in a good way.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anna Lasses for the question. I can state that the process regarding the aid budget and regulatory letters this year does not differ from how previous governments have handled it.

When it comes to the large mingle that was organized, where several civil society organizations were invited and given the opportunity to ask questions and receive information on how the government intends to move forward, I can state that the invitation was sent out at approximately the same time as it usually is and that this mingle - this meeting - took place at approximately the same time as it usually does.

I envision that there will be a continued dialogue. And dialogue does not mean that anyone other than the government and a majority in the Riksdag will ultimately decide the direction. But of course, it is important to have a dialogue and talk with one another. And these civil society organizations are incredibly important implementers of Swedish aid and possess great competence that we shall take advantage of.

I therefore envision that there will be a continued close dialogue, for example when strategies are to be reviewed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree. Of course, it is the majority here in the Riksdag that ultimately decides on all of this. There is no doubt about that. The dialogue is more about precisely everyone's opportunity to be involved and have their voice heard and to actually perhaps also come forward with ideas and input.

Now, it has been announced that a reform agenda is to be launched. From what I understand, this is going to happen quite quickly. There should be room for a broad dialogue there. But we have still not seen that, have we?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Madam Speaker! When one is to develop a new policy for aid, and when one is to develop new proposals and, for example, review strategies, one will of course have a dialogue with several different parties, including several civil society organizations.

As stated last in the foreign policy declaration, this government intends to give civil society actors a larger role in the implementation of Swedish aid because we see the important role they play, the competence they possess, and the important role they have in the implementation of Swedish aid. It is therefore completely self-evident that a dialogue will be held with a number of civil society organizations during the restructuring of the aid.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! My thoughts first go to the victims of the horrific earthquake disaster in the Kurdish parts of Turkey and Syria. The rest of the world, including Sweden, must of course continue to assist those affected in every conceivable way.

I intended to focus on international aid in my speech. But I will first say a few words about an all too forgotten conflict, namely the one in Western Sahara.

For 48 years, Morocco's illegal occupation of Western Sahara has been allowed to continue, an occupation that violates international law, the will of the UN, and the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In connection with Morocco's war of aggression, a large number of Western Saharawis were forced to flee into the Sahara desert, where they still live under difficult conditions. The Western Saharawis who remain in the country are subjected to constant harassment and persecution by the occupying power.

The situation has worsened further after the ceasefire was broken by Morocco in November 2020. It was a ceasefire that was concluded in 1990 after the parties, namely Polisario and Morocco, agreed to hold a UN-led referendum on the country's independence - a referendum that has not yet taken place due to Morocco's constant sabotage. The international community has failed in its mission, and Morocco's occupation and looting of the country's raw materials can continue.

Now the war risks being escalated as a result of these failures. It is high time that the UN and the EU begin to demand that Morocco accept the referendum. It is also high time that the EU listens to its own court and stops entering into agreements that include the occupied Western Sahara and in that way legitimize the occupation. Sweden can contribute to a solution by recognizing the Western Saharan state, according to the Riksdag's decision from 2012, as well as taking the lead in getting the UN and the EU to act with force against Morocco.

Madam Speaker! Cutting aid and abandoning the one percent goal is to send completely wrong signals to the rest of the world. In a time when 790 million people in the world live in extreme poverty while democracy and equality are decreasing, aid needs to increase, not decrease. When the world is hit by disasters such as the one in Turkey and Syria, Swedish aid was needed.

Promoting Swedish exports, increasing return migration, and reducing migration is not good aid. Good aid is long-term and based on the recipients' needs and perspectives according to the framework that exists today. That the government has shifted the aid without consulting and discussing with aid donors is remarkable to say the least. It is also remarkable to say the least that the government chooses to significantly cut back on information support to aid organizations, something that will make it difficult to analyze, research, and inform about how the aid is used.

The government wants to focus the aid on Europe and, above all, Ukraine. Of course, the hard-hit Ukrainian people must receive aid and help to rebuild their country, but the needs are enormous. Therefore, a long-term plan for the reconstruction was needed where extra funds are provided that do not burden the current aid. Focusing too much on Europe also risks opening up for increased influence from Russia and China in, for example, Africa and Southeast Asia. Through effective and long-term aid, we can instead contribute to development and democracy.

Equality is a key factor for development. Unfortunately, equality has stagnated or regressed in the world. For example, maternal mortality and sexual and gender-based violence have increased as a consequence of the pandemic. The serious democratic regression and the violence and oppression of authoritarian regimes, as in Iran and Afghanistan, hit girls, women, and LGBTQ+ persons particularly hard.

Education is the foundation for equality. Through school, children gain knowledge about their rights. Many girls did not return to school after the pandemic, and violence against children, child marriages, and teenage pregnancies increased. Education serves as a protection against this. I therefore view with concern the signals that the strategy for sustainable social development, which includes education support, risks being phased out.

Access to clean water, sanitation, and hygiene are also important issues of equality. UN reports warn that we are alarmingly far from reaching global goals for equality. In this situation, the equality agenda must be a starting point for all parts of foreign policy, including aid.

I am also deeply concerned that the aid to democracy movements in Myanmar and Guatemala risks being phased out at a time when it is needed more than ever.

In a situation where Israel's violations of human rights, international law, and the Palestinian people not only continue but are becoming increasingly grave, where the number of illegal settlements on occupied land grows unchecked and where Palestinians are forcibly displaced, the government chooses to cut aid to Palestine. This is also deeply concerning.

Vänsterpartiet stands in solidarity with the world's poor. We do not accept a Swedish aid policy that does not take into account people's needs and suffering around the world. We stand up for the one percent goal and want at least half of the aid to go to women and that 10 percent should go to SRHR. We also do not want the aid to be eroded through deductions for refugee reception.

It is the poorest part of the world that is hit hardest by the effects of the climate crisis. The wealthy part of the world must therefore take a climate responsibility. To combine effective poverty reduction with ecological sustainability, investments in environmentally friendly and sustainable production of energy, clean water, and food are required. Therefore, additional climate aid is also needed, which goes beyond the one percent aid.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! It is very interesting to listen to the Left Party's presentation here, because it is not quite in line with the aid policy that the Left Party has pursued throughout history.

To begin with, the Left Party itself, as the only party in the Swedish Riksdag, has so to speak been a recipient of aid during a large part of the party's history. The party was completely dependent on aid from the East for many years. Furthermore, the Left Party has since then—after the end of the Cold War—for many years held the view, and partially still does, that it is completely okay to give aid to dictatorships. The Left Party has, for example, been a driving force in providing aid to the regime in Cuba.

In a review of the Left Party's own aid activities regarding party-related aid, it was revealed that the Left Party funneled quite a lot of its grants to Maoist groups in the Philippines who wanted to carry out a military coup in the country. They also supported, for example, Marxist-Leninist, unreformed communist groups in Colombia.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank Fredrik Malm for the question.

Vänsterpartiet stands up for human rights everywhere and in the whole world. As soon as human rights are threatened, we are the first to stand up for them; it doesn't matter where in the world human rights are threatened, so to speak.

That we think it is okay to provide support to Cuba is because we want to see a democratic development in the country. We see that there are major restrictions of democratic freedoms and rights in Cuba. We see that some progress has been made regarding social initiatives and environmental initiatives, but we see that there are still major problems regarding democratic freedoms and rights. Therefore, we think it is good that one continues to support, for example, the democracy movement in Cuba.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! That was just a big, black hole of rhetoric.

You in Vänsterpartiet say that you stand behind democracy regardless of where human rights are violated, Lotta Johnsson Fornarve, but you have not done that. As recently as a few years ago, Vänsterpartiet organized meetings where Maduro in Venezuela was hailed. The party, through its folk high school, still has an organizational cooperation with, for example, the Cuban regime – the last totalitarian regime in the Western Hemisphere. It has been totalitarian since the beginning of the 1960s, and Vänsterpartiet has still not broken ties with it.

After the invasion of Ukraine - the Crimean Peninsula and Donetsk - in 2014, it turned out that Vänsterpartiet had aid cooperation with pro-Russian groups in Ukraine, for example. The largest aid that Sweden has decided on consisted of weapons to Ukraine, which the Riksdag decided on during the spring last year. At that time, Vänsterpartiet voted no in the first vote.

Madam Speaker! In what way, then, is the Left Party to be credible when speaking about human rights and democracy in the aid policy?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Madam Speaker! Much of what Fredrik Malm says is actually not true. Vänsterpartiet has truly stood up for human rights everywhere in the world, and we have been the first to come out with criticism when human rights have been violated.

When it comes to Venezuela, we do not support the regime in any way, but we mean that the Venezuelan people themselves should be allowed to decide their future in democratic, free elections. It should not be decided by Fredrik Malm or anyone else, but it is the Venezuelan people who themselves shall decide their future. That is what we stand behind.

Regarding Ukraine: Yes, in the first vote we voted no to sending weapons to Ukraine. We did that for principled reasons. But we have now long stood behind giving great support to Ukraine, including military support. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! When we stood here in December, there were many question marks. What does the government actually want with Swedish aid, and why is the dialogue with the Riksdag and civil society so non-existent? Time passes, and many question marks remain. The dialogue is still, for the most part, non-existent.

Let me first state that we, of course, stand behind the government one hundred percent when it comes to the support for Ukraine and the acute support for the earthquake-stricken areas in Turkey and Syria. But the world is larger than that. Time is passing, and the situation is worsening. Poverty is increasing, hunger is increasing, conflicts are increasing, and equality is decreasing. Swedish aid is important. It is even crucial for many people's survival and, from a larger perspective, for the entire world's and not least Sweden's future.

Centerpartiet believes that we need to go back to the one percent goal - preferably yesterday. Swedish aid is good, but it needs to be reformed and focused. That is also what the government says, but the direction is, as said, still quite unclear.

It is now being spoken of that a reform agenda is being prepared. Since we in Centerpartiet are not invited to that dialogue, I have a number of messages to the government regarding things that we believe should be included in this.

The first is a proper prioritization of aid to education. A full 70 percent of the world's ten-year-olds cannot read a simple text. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the figure is even higher: 87 percent.

We know that education is one of the absolutely most effective ways to lift people out of poverty. It leads to increased self-sufficiency, jobs, better health, increased equality and reduced violence. The list can be made longer. Despite this, only 3 percent of the total Swedish aid is invested in education specifically. Here, there are obviously great opportunities for development.

The second is a prioritization of aid to build up entrepreneurship and innovation to create sustainable jobs. Companies provide jobs and secure livelihoods. Supporting the development of entrepreneurship and cooperatives also often benefits women and increases equality.

It is important here to highlight food security and agricultural entrepreneurship. The synergies will be great there, not least in a world where hunger is increasing and the conditions for food production need to be improved, also linked to climate change. There is also every reason for the EU as a presiding country to take the lead and see how the EU can create import rules and support that promote sustainable small agricultural enterprises outside the EU. This applies within both aid policy and trade policy.

The third is climate aid and, above all, support for the transition. Here, it is again about, among other things, companies that need to be transitioned in order to be able to produce goods in a sustainable way. This can occur through cooperation between recipients and Swedish companies and through civil society structures. Once again, the opportunities for synergies are many. The important thing is to see the opportunities in the local conditions of the recipients, so that we do not lock ourselves into what is best from a Swedish perspective.

These were three joint motions to reform and develop Swedish aid.

Above all, Sweden needs to focus its aid on long-term perspectives. We have heard several times from the government that food parcels are more important than conferences. We believe that a focus on development and long-term perspectives reduces the need for food parcels and increases resilience when the crisis eventually arrives. Furthermore, conferences – or perhaps rather meeting places – can actually be the key to ideas and solutions being born, consensus being created, and democracy being developed.

This leads to my final point. We consider this dialogue to be important and are still waiting for the government to start it in earnest. But we understand if the government has a lot to do, and we are ready to help if it is the case that the government does not have time.

Therefore, I give the government until March 5, that is, after the spring break, at least here in Stockholm. If we have not heard anything by then, I and the Center Party will take the initiative to invite both the government and all parties, as well as civil society and the business community, to a day on the theme of Swedish aid. Those parties, aid organizations, and companies who want to be involved in organizing this are very welcome to get in touch – the more who organize this, the better!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! The foreign policy declaration focuses heavily on the uncertain security situation in the world and the important support for Ukraine to win peace. This is important and necessary. Sweden shall also continue to be an important and strong voice for democracy, freedom, and human rights.

However, in my speech, I will highlight something else that we Christian Democrats have worked for for a long time in this chamber, namely freedom of religion. More than 80 percent of the world's population identifies with a religion, and religion plays an important role in many societies. Nevertheless, the issue of freedom of religion has had an all too low profile in Sweden's foreign policy and development cooperation.

Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental rights in the UN Declaration of Human Rights as well as in the European Convention. However, the violations of freedom of religion are great in an international context, and in many countries, a negative development is seen. More than three-quarters of the world's population live in countries where freedom of religion and belief is restricted by the state or different groups in society.

Violations of freedom of religion and belief prevent people from living their lives in freedom. They counteract the development of equal, peaceful and democratic societies and also often contribute to lives in poverty and vulnerability.

When it comes to the issue of persecution of Christians, the development is particularly worrying, as persecution has increased in recent years. The international human rights organization Open Doors publishes a list every year of the 50 countries where persecution against Christians is greatest. In January, the list for 2023 was released, which shows that persecution against Christians has worsened and intensified. It is now assessed to be very or extremely serious. 360 million Christians are subject to persecution because of their faith. This means that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world.

In the Middle East, we see a very serious situation. Religious minorities risk disappearing completely from their countries of origin and the cradle of Christianity. Several of the countries in the Middle East have been affected by war and conflicts. The Christian minorities have lived - and live - in a particular vulnerability that has forced many into flight. This has led to an alarming decrease in the Middle East's Christian population.

In Iraq and Syria, we have witnessed how the Christian population and certain other ethnic and religious groups have experienced severe persecution, primarily from the terrorist group IS. Christians have been forced to convert, flee, or have been killed. In Iraq, the Christian population has decreased from approximately 1.5 million to barely 200,000 over the last 20 years, which corresponds to a decrease of over 80 percent. In Syria, there were previously about 2 million Christians, but now the number is down to barely half a million.

The severely persecuted Christian minorities need our and the world's support to live in peace and security.

We Christian Democrats have long worked to ensure that freedom of religion receives a more prominent place in Swedish foreign policy, but the interest from the previous government has been lukewarm. After the previous government's compact silence regarding the persecution of Christians, it is welcome that the current government, in its foreign policy declaration, highlights the persecution of Christians as a priority issue. This is also a clear Christian Democratic element.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I shall address something that has touched many of us deeply over the past few days. The powerful earthquake in Turkey has caused a terrible humanitarian catastrophe with many dead, great human suffering, and enormous destruction. Over 41,000 people are dead, and the number increases every day. Tens of thousands are injured and millions are homeless. It is an unimaginable tragedy, and I wish to express my warm and deep sympathy. My thoughts are with those affected.

Aid organizations on site describe the situation as catastrophic and the needs as enormous. WHO calls the earthquake the worst natural disaster in a century, and approximately 26 million people are estimated to be affected. It is also noted that moving forward, great resources will be required to maintain emergency medical care and be able to provide other assistance. Much support will continue to be needed from Sweden and the rest of the world, and here we, as the presiding country in the EU, have an important role in coordinating the EU's collective support to alleviate the distress.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Yusuf Aydin for the speech.

The Chairman did not mention the aid. I still want to bring it up, because the aid has been an important issue for the Christian Democrats, who have been one of the parties that previously stood up for the one percent goal – but apparently no longer.

My question concerns the aid to Palestine. We find ourselves in a situation where Israel's violations of human rights, international law, and the Palestinian people not only continue but are becoming increasingly grave, especially after the new regime has come into place. The blockade of Gaza continues, as does the construction of the wall that has long been condemned by the UN. The number of illegal settlements on occupied land is growing unchecked, and Palestinians are being displaced on a large scale from their homes.

Shouldn't the aid in this situation increase instead of decrease?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that we Christian Democrats are warm supporters of generous and effective aid. We have also succeeded in negotiating a high, stable and long-term level.

It is important that the aid focuses on the right things, and in the agreement we have, a larger proportion of the aid will go through civil society, where it has been more effective. By doing so, we can focus the aid more on humanitarian support, poverty reduction, and democracy.

Some of the aid to Palestinian authorities and others is decreasing because there has been criticism. We must try to focus more on the thematic priorities. We believe that this is an important element in that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

The aid to civil society has also decreased. Not least, the information support to the aid organizations has decreased dramatically. This obviously hits hard against the civil society organizations' ability to carry out aid work.

Swedish aid to Palestine does not go to Palestinian authorities but primarily to civil society and to promote democracy, education, healthcare and electricity supply, as well as to human rights organizations that provide support to those who have been affected by the oppression.

When one cuts drastically on the aid to Palestine, 40-60 percent, there is a risk that the development will worsen instead of improve.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The share of aid to civil society will increase and be an important part that we will safeguard. The total aid amount decreases marginally but remains stable. Something we have also succeeded in negotiating, and which is very important, is a cap on the deduction. This means that aid organizations can plan better and that it becomes more predictable how much of the grants they can count on.

The information burden has increased significantly over the last ten years, and now we are making an adjustment. This is for interventions in Sweden; it is not about the support that goes abroad to combat poverty.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask the member about the Christian Democrats' view on the one percent goal for aid. We know that despite your promise in the election campaign to be the guarantor that the one percent goal would be reached, you lost the negotiation at Tidö Castle outside Västerås, and now it is the Sweden Democrats' and the Moderates' line that applies. Sweden will no longer allocate one hundredth of its wealth to fighting poverty in the world. The priority is less aid to the world's poor and more tax cuts for high-income earners in Sweden.

Is this a temporary retreat by the Christian Democrats regarding the one-percent goal, or is it a permanent change of course?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that we had as a starting point to safeguard the one percent goal. But in the negotiations, as in all negotiations, we have had to both give and take. I am, however, confident that we have reached a level that is good in terms of both amount and predictability. Through the deduction ceiling of 8 percent, the aid organizations can know approximately how much they will receive – in contrast to under the Social Democratic government when the aid deduction could amount to 15-20 percent to manage refugee reception here in Sweden. That hit hard against the aid that was supposed to go to poverty reduction and humanitarian support.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that I do not have a Christian Democrat negotiating for me in important matters, because the result of this negotiation is not to be considered successful if one wants to stand up for the one percent goal, because it has actually been abandoned.

If you succeeded so incredibly well in the negotiations, why is the entire aid establishment so angry? How is that? It might be because the information impact is reduced by 90 percent. It might be because not even highly educated statisticians and mathematicians can calculate how the support to civil society increases. It is very difficult to interpret.

As said, why are all the aid organizations so angry if you have succeeded so well in the negotiations?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am very confident in how we have negotiated, and the result is very good considering the starting points from some of the other parties.

I am also somewhat surprised that the Social Democrats, in their own shadow budget, do not manage to reach 1 percent but land on 0.91 percent. Despite the fact that they did not need to negotiate with other parties, they themselves have abandoned the one percent goal. To then accuse us of having betrayed our promise is quite bold.

A more effective aid with a larger proportion through civil society can still make a big difference for the poor and in the democracy work being done out in the world. It is not a trade-off.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! On the Ministry for Foreign Affairs' website, one can read that the prevention of risks and threats is an important part of security policy, which is a part of foreign policy. The issues we are discussing here today – Nato, aid, the military – are obviously crucial from this perspective. But what this debate clearly lacks is someone who thinks long-term and holds the government accountable for how their policy in other areas hinders Sweden from successfully creating the conditions for its foreign policy priorities.

We are now heading towards a world that is 3 degrees warmer. It is a world that will be largely uninhabitable, where the earth's inhabitants are crowded into an ever-shrinking area, where clean drinking water and food become an increasingly scarce resource, and where extreme weather events affecting people's lives, health, and property become ever more common.

The security policy consequences of climate change are clear. Extreme weather events such as droughts or floods and long-term effects such as depleted soils and desertification can create local competition for land, water, and other income-generating resources and increase the risk of conflicts. This is well known. Research that the Foreign Minister's own department finances comes to precisely this conclusion: Deteriorated opportunities for livelihood in combination with increased migration lead to ever greater risks of violent conflicts.

Mr. Speaker! Already at a 1.5-degree average temperature increase, global fish catches decrease by 1.5 million tons. At 2 degrees of warming, they are expected to decrease by 3 million tons. The risks of diseases such as dengue fever and malaria will increase with a global warming between 1.5 and 2 degrees and spread to new areas. The sea-level rise by the year 2100, when today's low-lying children are in their 80s, will be approximately 1 decimeter higher at 2 degrees than at 1.5 degrees of warming. This single decimeter difference determines whether up to 10 million more people are affected and exposed to related risks.

But today we are not on track to meet the Paris Agreement, and the world is not heading towards a warming of between 1.5 and 2 degrees. The sum of all climate goals - Sweden's, the EU's, and the other countries' climate goals - takes us towards a global warming closer to 3 degrees in the year 2100. It therefore depends on whether the climate goals are met.

Mr. Speaker! No one here has likely missed that the policy the government is pursuing will lead to significantly increased carbon emissions. The government has shifted Swedish policy so that Sweden's climate goals for 2030 will no longer be met. The path the government has embarked on also means that Sweden will not reach our share of the EU's climate goals.

The debate has so far failed to highlight that this also creates enormous security and foreign policy risks. Drastic emission reductions are actually a prerequisite for a successful Swedish foreign policy, or put differently: They are a prerequisite for Foreign Minister Billström to be able to do his job.

Mr. Speaker! During the Green Party's time in government, climate work was a central part of foreign policy. We stood guard for effective aid and climate aid. With the Green Party in government, Sweden brought something to the table at the international climate negotiations and pushed forward the international climate work. Green ministers were given leading assignments in the negotiations, and we pushed forward the EU's climate work.

Mr. Speaker! The question is now how the Minister for Foreign Affairs views the paradigm shift in climate policy that the government has forced upon Sweden. How does the Minister for Foreign Affairs assess how this affects Sweden's foreign policy agenda? What do the increased greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden and the government's opposition to climate measures in the EU mean for the risks and threats that the Minister for Foreign Affairs' own department maintains that foreign policy should handle? Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs point out during government meetings that a world 3 degrees warmer is, by definition, a foreign policy and security policy catastrophe?

In this speech, Jan Riise and Jacob Risberg (both MP) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Next week marks one year since Vladimir Putin launched his campaign of genocide against Ukraine. Russia's purpose is to annihilate the Ukrainian state, nation, culture, economy, and identity due to its great Russian ambitions. It is now incredibly important to see the needs in Ukraine. They exist on the military side, the political side, the economic side, the humanitarian side and so on.

Ukraine practically needs everything they can get, and they need it quickly and in a coordinated manner. It requires us in Europe to show perseverance. We must understand that the sacrifices we make to help Ukraine are nothing compared to the sacrifices the Ukrainian population makes to ultimately help us. If Ukraine loses this war, the Russian war machine will surge further towards Moldova - if it does not happen already with a coup attempt. It will proceed towards other countries. It will never end. From the side of Europe, the USA, the Western world, and the free world, we must support Ukraine to the maximum to overcome this.

Mr. Speaker! I and an old Moderate politician, Gunnar Hökmark, hold meetings every Monday at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm with what is called the Monday Movement. Since February 24 and until now, we have met there every Monday. More and more people are coming there. More and more Stockholmers are coming to the meetings to show their support and their solidarity with the Ukrainian population.

The government has delivered a number of packages in support of Ukraine. The previous government also did so. We must continue with that and also use the Swedish presidency, not least to raise the issue of Ukraine's future EU membership.

Mr. Speaker! Let me also take up another issue. It concerns the Islamic regime in Iran. The Iranian population has been tormented under this sadistic dictatorship for over 40 years. They show a heroic courage, those who go out into the streets - and they are many. They have been very many during the autumn. It is not just about the right to be able to take off the veil from their heads, it is about what is called azadi in Persian, that is to say, freedom.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the Iranian regime has already fallen to such an extent that it has fallen as an ideological, Islamist project. There is no legitimacy for the theocratic rule in Iran. There is no longer any legitimacy among the people for Iran to be ruled by frustrating ayatollahs and mullahs and have a moral police. They hang people from cranes, oppress the population and torture them mercilessly. There is no support for this.

The only thing upholding the Iranian regime today, Mr. Speaker, is the regime's repressive organs. Sepah-e Pasdaran, Sepah-e Quds, the Basij militia, the regular army and the police forces are those who uphold the Iranian regime today. There is nothing else that upholds it.

What can the rest of the world do to support the Iranian population? One can list the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, as a terrorist organization. This provides a greater opportunity to block companies from trading with what appear to be ordinary companies in Iran but are actually linked to the Revolutionary Guard. It also provides greater opportunities to freeze assets. This means that one can reduce the capacity of the violent and brutal security organs to torment the Iranian population.

Mr. Speaker! In this context, we must also not forget that the Iranian regime poses a threat not only to 80-90 million inhabitants in Iran, but the Iranian regime is today involved in all conflicts in the Middle East region: in Yemen, Iraq, and Palestine. In practice, through the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon, they have ensured that Lebanon is a dysfunctional and mutilated state. In the same way, they have acted in Iraq with the support for Shia Arabic groupings, so-called Hashd al-Shaabi militias, in Iraq.

They have gone so far as to carry out terrorist attacks all the way in Argentina, where they blew up a Jewish cultural center. In attacks against synagogues in Germany, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is suspected, according to the investigations, to be involved.

Let us not get stuck in semantic definitions of the word terrorism in the discussion. The collective assessment is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, through its actions over decades – actually ever since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took power after his revolution in 1979 – has tormented its population, engaged in terrorism, and destabilized not only Iran but the entire Middle East region.

There are, in addition, a number of things the rest of the world should do to support the Iranian population that I do not have time to go into in this speech.

Just as several speakers have pointed out, our thoughts naturally go to the tens of thousands of victims of the terrible, horrific earthquake in Turkey and Syria.

(Applause)

In this speech, Martin Melin (L) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the speech! Aid has been one of the Liberals' flagship issues over the years. During the election campaign, the Liberals stood up for the one percent goal. You would absolutely not back down on that point. Now, however, the one percent goal has been abandoned by the government of which the Liberals are a part.

It is particularly serious that the support for civil society, which was supposed to be prioritized, is being cut. And it is particularly serious that the substantial reduction in information support. It is being cut by almost 90 percent, from 155 million to 20 million. This knocks the legs out from under a large part of the aid organizations.

How can it be that the Liberals are putting forward such a policy?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! There are a number of different problems within Swedish aid that need to be addressed. One problem that Swedish aid has dragged along for many, many years is that money has been paid out to undemocratic states. Money has been paid out to regimes that have stayed in power past their time or have tormented their population. Money has been paid out to regimes that one thought had been on the right track, but in reality, they have moved in a negative direction.

We in the Liberals have pointed out these problems for decades, while the Left Party has been pushing to provide more aid to such regimes. Therein lies a very large difference.

We will now make a number of clear prioritizations in the restructuring of the aid. This also means that some countries will receive less aid.

I note that three parties in the Riksdag reach the one percent target in their budget options. Vänsterpartiet is one of them.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lotta Johnsson Fornarve (V)

Mr. Speaker! Fredrik Malm knows just as well as I do that the aid does not go to states in the first instance, but it goes to multilateral organizations, civil society, democracy work, equality work and the like. Cutting back on the aid does not make the aid more effective. Furthermore, from a global perspective, the Swedish aid has been a very good and transparent aid.

There are things that could have been done better, but it does not become better by cutting it dramatically, especially not regarding the support to civil society and the information support. It is used precisely to research and investigate how the aid is used and to inform Swedish society about how the aid functions. It is also used to invite representatives from, for example, the democracy movement in different parts of the world to inform about aid and so that they can apply for aid.

I cannot understand how the Liberals can support such a large cut in information support and support for civil society.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is important that we have the perspectives clear for us. Even with a reduction or a certain reweighting of Swedish aid, we are now investing an enormous amount in Ukraine. Extra money has also been injected for the earthquake victims in Turkey and Syria. Sweden lies, in relation to our population, that is, gross national income per capita, at the absolute world top when it comes to aid even after this.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that Lotta Johnsson Fornarve argues that the aid reaches those most in need. But then she criticizes us for having reduced precisely that aid which concerns money to organizations in Sweden for their own campaign activities in Sweden. That is a completely different matter. It is better that we focus on ensuring that the money we give actually reaches the recipients, and not on organizations swelling in Sweden and getting more informants.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! The right-wing government, in which the Liberals are included, with a strong influence from the Sweden Democrats, is cutting back significantly on aid. For Palestine's part, it means that aid is being cut by almost half. Member of Parliament Malm has described this on his Facebook page and in other forums as a victory that he has fought for throughout his entire political career. The Member of Parliament further claims in the same post that over the years, and still today, hundreds of millions of kronor are being plowed into corruption and dictatorship.

May I inform Member Malm that of the aid that Sweden gives to Palestine, 2 percent is channeled via the Palestinian Authority. The rest goes to Palestinian civil society.

I think it is serious that the member uses fake news to undermine confidence in Swedish aid. I would like to hear a comment from the member on how he views the fact that very much money is now being cut to Palestinian civil society, something that hits women and children particularly hard.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Johan Büsers party pushed through that Sweden should recognize Palestine as an independent state. Then, in the name of reasonableness, one should also place certain demands on the Palestinian political leaders to act as a state. Elections have not been held in Palestine for 18 or 19 years; I believe that Mahmoud Abbas is in the 19th year of a four-year mandate period. No free elections are held. There are no free media. In one of its areas, half is ruled by an organization that Sweden has labeled as a terrorist organization, namely Hamas. There are enormous problems with corruption, not least as a result of the extensive aid dependency. The aid has, in several ways, therefore been very counterproductive for Palestine.

The reasonable thing is to put pressure on politicians in countries or areas that are not governed democratically. They must change their behavior and implement democratic reforms. This applies to both Palestine and all other areas.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have been consistent. We have raised the issues surrounding corruption and the fact that elections have not been held. We believe this is important. It is important to be able to criticize both sides.

But when one so flagrantly withdraws aid from civil society, something that affects vulnerable refugees, women and children in Palestinian society, Member of Parliament Malm describes this as a victory and something he has fought for throughout his entire political life. It was this that I reacted against.

I would also like to have a comment from Member Malm on how he views the settlements that Israel is currently carrying out and which are in conflict with international law. The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has clearly stated that this is a threat to the two-state solution, which we have stood up for for a long time. Can the Member comment on how he views the settlement policy? How should this cease?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by addressing something that Johan Büser said in his first speech, namely that it is only a very small part that is channeled through the authority. It seems as if the Palestinian Authority is some kind of minimal night-watchman state. There is a huge civil society, but the authority has no control over anything. That is not the case. If one gives 1 billion to, for example, healthcare in a country, one cannot come and say that it has nothing to do with the public sector because it is not direct budget support. It is a trick that is not reasonable. Of course, the Palestinian Authority, as the recipient of aid and responsible for the Palestinian development plan and much more, is deeply involved in what happens in the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank.

When it comes to settlements, I probably have no other opinion than most reasonable people here in the world. Israel should not expand the settlements in the West Bank, but rather one should seek a negotiated peace solution - a two-state solution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask Fredrik Malm, as a representative for the Liberals, a government party that has support from the Sweden Democrats in the Riksdag, how, during Sweden's presidency, they intend to highlight the principles of the rule of law in a clearer way. Building the rule of law is about ensuring that the state's judicial institutions function well and that we have good relations between the individual and the state. I imagine that the Liberals would hold that close to their hearts.

What we see now in Hungary and Poland is unacceptable. We all know that in Sweden, I would believe. In Hungary, the vast majority of media reporting is controlled by the government. Independent media face harassment. The government uses technology to spy on journalists. In Poland, the government continues to undermine the independence of the courts and appoint judges. Attacks against LGBTQI persons are common. Yet we do not see that the Swedish presidency prioritizes this in a real and clear way. We have many opportunities now during the presidency.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I must agree with Jytte Guteland's description of these problems. I would say that they are actually more serious than that, because they are not limited to Hungary and Poland. We have several other countries within the European Union that have very large deficiencies. There is also a worrying development with both a loud far-right and left-populist groupings. Sometimes they unite, put on yellow vests and go out in Paris, sometimes they stand on opposite sides. In the long run, this risks undermining even countries that have a more stable rule of law than Hungary and Poland have.

The truth is, of course, that the Swedish presidency prioritizes this. We must seek consensus within the EU on various issues. We must also raise issues and ensure that there is support for the Commission's ongoing process regarding these countries.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Fredrik Malm for the description. But I must say that I want a clearer answer regarding what the Swedish presidency intends to do when it comes to the principles of the rule of law and Hungary and Poland. The situation is acute and alarming. Sweden has an opportunity to push the process forward, not least the Article 7 procedure, and ensure timing regarding the recommendations for the rule of law concerning Poland and Hungary that the Commission has in its hands. There, one could work with the timeline.

We know that we have a council meeting and an event on this in May, but there is no description of what it will entail. Will it, for example, entail inquiries within certain areas? Will the situation be specified for, for example, women in Poland, who risk a very difficult future and who are already being subjected to it? It is actually women who are dying because of the abortion restrictions.

I would like to hear more about what you intend to do. What does a prioritization mean for the Swedish government?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I can only agree that everything that Jytte Guteland is listing here are very important issues.

This is part of a continuous process. It is also the case that it is partly moving matter. The whole point of Sweden being in the EU is that there are some other countries that are also in – over 20 actually, more than 25 even. With the division of power that exists between the Commission, the Council and others, it is a constant dialogue. That makes it very difficult for me to stand here in February and say on which dates and at what times different issues will come up on the agenda. The Government Offices and the EU Minister are probably better at answering more concretely when these different issues and other very relevant issues come up on the agenda and in what order. But I completely agree that this is very important.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased to hear Member Malm describe the situation in Iran and the need to blacklist the Revolutionary Guard. The question is whether this also means that this is the Liberals' line going forward. Unlike us Social Democrats, the Liberals belong to the majority here in the Riksdag. Unlike us, the Liberals also sit in the government that has given us in the committee the message that they are checking how the other countries stand on a blacklisting but that they are not actively pursuing this. Does the member's statement simply mean that we can count on the Liberals' support in the EU Committee going forward?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! This is the Liberals' view. Within the government constellation we are currently in, we argue for that view in the negotiations that take place. That is how democracy works.

Mr. Speaker! For my part, I have for many years championed the issue of democracy in Iran and the necessity of supporting the Iranian people. I was critical of the bourgeois government from 2006-2014, partly because they accepted an official visit with Rohani and Zarif during the second term, partly due to a number of other reasons where I felt the government should have been clearer. I was very disappointed with the Social Democratic government during the eight years thereafter. A number of cooperation agreements were concluded with the Iranian regime. I believe it was in 2017. Furthermore, they traveled down to Tehran and confirmed the patriarchal and reactionary system by adopting the most conservative attire and marching in front of the mullahs in Iran. I have been critical of all governments since I entered this house, I can state that.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! I truly appreciate the member's genuine commitment to Iran. But the Liberals, unlike us, have the advantage of sitting in the government and being involved in making the active decisions.

We have a situation in the Riksdag that means we could send a different line to the EU with the government. Once again: Can we expect that we will have the Liberals' support in the EU Committee on this issue going forward?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I state what I have stated before: We are having these conversations in the government, and the Liberals' view is clear. I have expressed it in debates on Sveriges Radio, at various seminars, and in other contexts. No one should doubt this.

Those who, on the other hand, really have something to prove in the question of democracy in Iran are the Social Democrats. We are now dealing with the six or seven cooperation agreements that were concluded with the Iranian regime. In various respects, one acted in a way that was a pure slap in the face to all tens of thousands of Iranians in Sweden. You went down to Tehran and marched in front of the mullahs in the most reactionary attire. Today, all of Iran is out protesting to get rid of those garments. You put them on voluntarily and walked in front of the leaders there. There is very much, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the question of Middle East policy in a broad sense and Iran in particular, where the Social Democrats have quite a bit to prove in order to be credible.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to ask Fredrik Malm and the Liberals how you now view the one percent goal. We all know that you have given it up in the negotiations with the Moderates and SD, who have pushed to abandon the one percent goal.

I wonder if this is a long-term position from the Liberals. It has previously been a very aid-friendly party that, together with us Social Democrats, has stood up for the one percent goal. Is it a temporary retreat, or have the Liberals forever given up the idea of allocating one hundredth of our wealth to poor countries in the world?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I noted in a previous exchange of remarks that three of the eight parties in the Riksdag reach the one percent goal. These are Centerpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet. I do not note Socialdemokraterna in that enumeration.

Mr. Speaker! I could bounce back the exact same question to Olle Thorell. Have the Social Democrats always given up the one percent goal? I think one would get approximately the same answer from both of us.

The budget is established for the coming year. Then there is a financial plan for a few more years ahead. It is clear that we wish for the Swedish economy, our opportunities, the quality of Swedish aid and the possibilities for efficiency and other factors to allow us to increase the aid.

I stand behind Sweden providing generous and high aid. I see that the needs, not least in the humanitarian area in Ukraine and all around in different parts of the world, are enormous. We shall, of course, strive for that. But none of our parties reach the one percent goal in the budget. That is the truth.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to use this minute to ask about feminist foreign policy.

The Liberals are a party with a proud tradition of fighting for equality in Sweden and internationally. I can list many fantastic feminist liberals who have worked for this, such as Barbro Westerholm, Birgitta Ohlsson and Bengt Westerberg.

Is it in the same way now, that it is a concession to the Sverigedemokraterna and the Moderaterna who for some reason no longer want to see a feminist foreign policy? Is it a concession from the Liberalerna? Or is it an ideological shift where one no longer believes in increasing feminism in the world?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag consists of 349 mandates, not 349 posters. Feminist foreign policy became poster politics, Mr. Speaker. Sweden abstained when Saudi Arabia was voted into the UN's Commission on the Status of Women. Is that feminist foreign policy, Olle Thorell?

It emerged in a previous exchange of remarks that I remembered how Social Democratic government representatives marched in front of the mullahs and ayatollahs in Iran in the most reactionary attire to appease them. Was that feminist foreign policy?

We can maneuver with words in here, indulge in semantic gymnastics and so on. But it is about the content of the policy. When it comes to the content of the policy, Sweden must pursue an aid policy that strives to strengthen human rights, democracy, women's rights and so on.

I call myself a feminist. Some others in here probably do not. But the most important thing is the content of the policy and not what we call it.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! For over 50 years, there has been a guiding principle, a compass that has guided Swedish aid policy. It is the principle of allocating one-hundredth of our wealth to combat poverty and promote development in poor countries in the world.

There has been a broad, cross-bloc consensus around this for decades. Governments of different political colors have strived to achieve this goal. It was temporarily abandoned during the 90s crisis when the public finances were streamlined, but was achieved again in the early 00s.

We have over the years debated different views on the direction of aid, methods, and how we best combat poverty in the world. But despite that, we have agreed that it is right and proper that we, with our high prosperity in a world where the needs are endless, should allocate one-hundredth of our prosperity to aid.

But now we are witnessing a paradigm shift in both foreign and aid policy. It is not enough that Sweden stops being a pioneer for other countries when the feminist foreign policy is scrapped. It is not enough that we move from being a global, active, progressive actor to becoming a more regional and passive actor. Now, the one percent goal is also being abandoned. The Moderates and the Sweden Democrats have had the Christian Democrats and the Liberals abandon their promises to stand up for that goal.

We Social Democrats stand firm on the one percent goal. In our shadow budget, we allocate 2.5 billion kronor more than the government to aid. We intend, when we have government power again, to ensure that the one percent level is achieved again step by step. We did that after the 90s crisis, and so we will do it again, the sooner the better.

The government is now pushing through the largest shift in Swedish aid policy in several decades without reasonable preparation. It is happening without referral processes, without dialogue with authorities, aid organizations, experts, or civil society. There is no participation or involvement of the recipients.

It is happening without a basis in research or proven experience, and without consequence analyses. It is even happening without even a basic do no harm analysis before proceeding with this paradigm shift.

The government says that it will come forward with a new reform agenda. That sounds nice. But what it will look like, when it is to come, how it will be prepared and anchored, no one seems to really know.

The consequences of the reallocation of aid are many and serious. Support to UN bodies such as UN-Women, Unaids and UNDP is significantly reduced. Aid to Palestine is halved.

Swedish aid to Burma, Myanmar, is decreasing by 60 percent at the same time as the military junta's oppression is becoming worse and the democracy movement's need for support from the rest of the world is becoming ever greater.

There is no trace of the promised increase in aid via civil society organizations. Instead, the appropriation for information and communication, which often goes to civil society, is cut by almost 90 percent.

It is a grant that also gives the poor, MR activists and democracy fighters in the world a voice in Swedish and European debate. The grant is being cut by 90 percent.

Mr. Speaker! But it is not just a mathematical difference that there will now be less money for the poor in the world. It is not just a question of prioritization when the right-wing government chooses tax cuts for high-income earners over poverty reduction in the world.

Beyond all this, it is also an ideological shift. Now, aid shall be based on purely Swedish interests. Aid shall promote Swedish exports. It shall stimulate return migration, stop migration to Sweden, and be used as a tool to force countries to take back deported citizens.

Then I wonder: What has happened to the rights perspective and the recipients' perspective? What has happened to the interests and rights of the poor and the vulnerable?

Is it not a genuine Swedish interest to work long-term to build robust democratic societies, not oppression, where people can live free lives, support themselves, break the shackles of poverty and develop their own prosperity?

Furthermore, the government's unilateral focus on pure self-interest for Sweden in aid runs counter to internationally accepted principles for effective and sustainable aid.

There is an enlightened self-interest that should be Sweden's line. It is the realization that we all live on this globe together, that we are all dependent on one another. To fight for everyone's equal value and rights is our common duty.

I want to conclude with a poem by Tage Danielsson about solidarity.

A drop dropped in the river of life has no power to float itself A requirement is placed on every drop Help to keep the others up

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Olle Thorell, for the presentation! I chose to listen to the entire presentation before I requested a reply and noted that it was a beautiful poem at the end.

But again: There are no new proposals from the Social Democrats on what should be done with the very large resources that we allocate to aid. Even though the Social Democrats do not also allocate 1 percent of the GNP to aid - they allocate 0.91 despite not having to negotiate with anyone other than possibly Mikael Damberg - it is still very much money. But there are no new ideas on how the policy area should be developed and improved.

Is it the case that the Social Democrats think everything should be exactly as it has always been? Is there any new idea, or is the only idea to use the subsidy as a budget regulator?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Again: The Social Democrats stand by the goal that 1 percent of Sweden's GNI shall go to aid. That is a fact. Then we achieve this goal step by step, budget by budget.

Magdalena Thuresson requests ideas and thoughts on how to develop aid. We had a great thing called feminist aid policy. A part of the feminist foreign policy has now been scrapped by the Moderaterna and company because they apparently think that feminism has gone too far and that women's and girls' rights do not deserve to be prioritized by placing them under an umbrella of feminist foreign policy.

We also stand up for workers' rights, for developing climate aid, and for building alliances with private aid donors to develop aid. I could speak for hours about how we want to develop the aid policy, but now my minute of speaking time is over.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magdalena Thuresson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates are not so interested in labels. We are interested in content – what one chooses to do with this money. It is money that one chooses not to spend on the Swedish justice system, on Swedish defense, or on municipalities and regions. This is money that we choose to spend on aid, and therefore it matters what one chooses to do with it.

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for Olle Thorell that should be very easy to answer. If you now insist that it is so important to have a payment target of 1 percent of GNI for aid - why do you not do so? Why do the Social Democrats say one thing and do something else? Why do you not stand for what you actually do?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are de facto allocating 2.5 billion kronor more than the government on aid. It is a way to show that we intend to step by step return to the one percent level. Just as we did after having sanitized the state finances in the 90s, we will restore the aid budget to 1 percent of GNI.

I also want to say something about it being interesting that Magdalena Thuresson only refers to feminist foreign policy as a label. Was there nothing else in feminist foreign policy other than the name itself? If that were the problem for the Moderaterna and the right, it would simply be a matter of filling this label with content. But that is not what is done. Instead, one chooses to remove what one only calls a label.

The truth must therefore be that one sees feminism as the problem. I will let the question hang: What is the problem for the right with feminism?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! A war is ongoing in Europe. A war is ongoing very close to Sweden. It is a war that we have debated here during the day. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to hear that Sweden's government stands fully and firmly behind Ukraine and that Ukraine will win the war.

But I also want to say that the horrors of war - a major war of the magnitude that Russia's illegal war against Ukraine is - always entail a risk that other conflicts are forgotten and that other hotspots do not receive the attention they need.

I am thinking of Belarus, a country located on the other side of the Baltic Sea. The border is only 40 miles from us. There, democracy is missing, there influence is missing, and there the principles of the rule of law are missing. How much do we debate this today?

I think it is time that we also remember all the other conflict areas that exist. I also mention Tibet, Mr. Speaker. It is another country that is subject to aggression from a major nation - China. It is important to also remember that there are other areas that we must think about when we debate foreign policy.

There is a common denominator: countries that commit aggressive acts against other countries are usually not democracies. They are not countries that respect fundamental freedoms, but rather countries that do not respect the principles of the rule of law. That, Mr. Speaker, is the common denominator for the countries that wage aggressive wars and commit atrocities against their people.

Let me illustrate this with some areas that I consider important. In recent days, we have heard about a Ukrainian journalist who has been sentenced to six years in prison. She appears, or has appeared, in Mariupol. Maria Ponomarenko wrote an article about how Russian combat aircraft passed over the theater in Mariupol. For this, she was immediately arrested and sentenced to six years in prison. This I say in connection with respecting the principles of the rule of law.

Let me also mention another person who uses their expression to speak about the fact that war is ongoing in Ukraine and that Putin is responsible for this. Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian oppositionist, conducted an interview with CNN. Two hours after the interview, he was detained and arrested. He is today in prison, in a labor camp, with diminished health. This is not how any rule of law acts.

Much has been said here today about women and women's rights. Let me mention that if we are to achieve lasting peace, a peace built on respect, it is precisely what the Foreign Minister mentioned earlier today that applies: Women must be included. Women need to be part of the conversations held to achieve peace. They need to be part of the peace process at all levels. This is something that we absolutely must not forget.

I also want to mention that the victims in the war in Ukraine are largely women. Women are those whom the perpetrators seek out and rape and commit other bestial abuses against. This is something that is rarely debated but which we must hold high. We must stand on the women's side. We must ensure that the women who are subjected to rape receive the support they need in the form of psychological interventions and of abortions, if that is what they desire. We must stand on the women's side.

Let me also mention in this context that women are fleeing. The majority of the 9 million refugees who have left Ukraine are women and children. Let us stand on their side and ensure that the women receive the help they need!

This is for me an example of feminist foreign policy and that we must always include the female perspective when we talk about politics.

There has also been talk here about feminist aid policy. No one has, however, spoken about women's absolute need to be able to have an income or, for example, something as simple as women's right to inherit from their husband. In many countries, this is an impossibility. It means that women who become widows can, in the worst case, be left without a home because their sons - it is the sons who inherit - say that we shall have the home.

We must stand on women's side and do what we can so that women's rights are respected.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! A few decades ago, Sweden was a country known worldwide for its international solidarity. Admittedly, there were shortcomings even during that time, but it is a fact that until very recently Sweden was considered – and it still is compared to many other countries – a voice for peace, freedom, and solidarity.

But it is not quite like that anymore, Mr. Speaker. This shows itself in practice, not only in the form of embarrassing statements from this government. It shows itself in the lack of support for the people of Afghanistan fleeing from the Taliban regime's terror, in the lack of support for the people of Palestine who are subjected to the world's most brutal occupation by Israel, and in the lack of support for the freedom-fighting Kurds who fought against IS all over the world but who now cannot be considered freedom fighters because the dictator Erdogan does not want them to be.

It is visible in the form that Swedish foreign policy has changed in the form of reduced aid that can build schools and hospitals. Instead, it is the bombing alliance Nato that is the role model, which time and again bombs away just schools and hospitals - exactly as Russia is doing today in the heinous war of aggression against Ukraine.

Once upon a time we had ambassadors like Harald Edelstam and prime ministers like Olof Palme, who despite their flaws always stood up for international solidarity. Today we have a government alternative whose largest party consists of racist and Nazi Twitter trolls. It is tragic for our country.

However, these are not the only situations where it is noticeable that Swedish foreign policy has changed. Tomorrow marks five months since the revolution against the dictatorship in Iran began. After 43 years of oppression, persecution, denunciation, executions, and corruption, all of this led to a boiling society whose breaking point was reached when the morality police, appointed by the murderous regime, killed the young Kurdish woman Jina Amini after taking her due to allegations that she was not wearing the correct clothes or headscarf.

For five months, millions of Iranians, Kurds, and other ethnic groups outside and inside Iran have shouted "jin, jiyan, azadi" or "zan, zendegi, azadi", which means woman, life, freedom. People have demonstrated, sent letters to politicians, and organized knowledge seminars and galas.

What has the Swedish government's response been? Well, the Swedish government's response during these months has been pure mockery and platitudes. When it is time for holidays like Nowruz, or Newroz as some call it, politicians from all parties are present and collect votes ahead of upcoming elections. But when it actually matters, during the difficult moments like now, we must be careful, according to Tobias Billström. In one moment, a party like the Sverigedemokraterna stands and says that they support the people's revolution in Iran, only to in another moment refuse to agree to a harder line in the EU committee against just that Iranian regime. No liar from these right-wing parties can come and say that this is not true. I have seen it myself time and again in the EU committee, and it is included in the minutes.

Despite the EU presidency and the opportunities this entails, these parties choose in practice to do nothing at all. Instead of Sweden's Foreign Minister calling Iran's ambassador directly when the protests began, Sweden's Foreign Minister was called to a conversation by Iran's Foreign Minister. The world is, therefore, upside down in this case. Instead of putting the revolutionary guard IRGC on the terror list, the government continues to say that we must be careful so as not to create disagreement in the EU.

20,000 people have been imprisoned in five months. A large number have been executed during these months, hundreds of thousands if we count from 1979 when this brutal regime took power. Children have been deprived of the right to live because they want to live in a democratic system. What support have they received other than empty words and promises from the Swedish government? The answer is practically zero.

Jina Amini, 22; Nika Shakarami, 16; Sarina Esmailzadeh, 16; Mehsa Mogoi, 18; Hananeh Kia, 22; Hadis Najafi, 23; Mohammad Rakhshani, 12; Omid Sarani, 13; Sodeys Keshani, 14; Zakaria Khial, 16; Saeed Mohammadi, 21; Fereidoon Mahmoudi, 32 - these are just some examples of people who have been murdered by this brutal regime in recent months.

I would just like to say a few words in conclusion regarding a person for whom I have taken on the honor of being a political sponsor or godfather. However, I wish I had not had to do so. It concerns Akbar Ghafari, who has been arrested and imprisoned on the accusation of having waged "war against God," which in Iran means execution. He is accused of crimes he has not committed. The truth is that the only thing he has done is to show solidarity with his fellow citizens during the protests by hiding them.

Let us together be the voice for the people of Iran and for all those ethnic groups who are subjected to the brutal, fundamentalist regime in Tehran! The people in Iran, in Baluchistan, in Kurdistan, in Kermanshah, in Manzanderan, in Gilan and in all other places deserve our support. Let us move past the platitudes and support them for real!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to say that I appreciate and am impressed by the commitment that Daniel Riazat has shown in the Iran issue. I am aware that we share the view on the Iranian regime.

Against this background, I am tired of the lies being spread that the Sweden Democrats in some way would not advocate for a terrorist classification of the IRGC. Daniel Riazat and I sat in the same meeting in the EU Committee where we voted for the government to adopt the toughest possible measures against the IRGC within the framework of the cooperation in the EU Committee. It is a fact, and it can be read in the minutes.

Then I know that Vänsterpartiet had a different line where they wanted to set as a requirement to designate IRGC as a terrorist organization. If there is no consensus, it would, however, not lead anywhere. But against that background: Will Daniel Riazat and Vänsterpartiet join forces with Sverigedemokraterna on this issue?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! I have followed this issue from the start and have attended virtually all the meetings of the EU Committee where the issue has been discussed, debated, and decided upon. It will therefore be very strange to stand here and hear that it is not true that the Sweden Democrats backed down in the EU Committee when the decision was to be made.

Many of us here in the chamber sat there during that time. And the minutes exist, as the member also said. The truth is that the Sweden Democrats, before the EU Committee meeting, went out and beat the big drum so that one should join in and push for the IRGC to be put on the terror list. When we finally sat at the EU Committee meeting, the Sweden Democrats were satisfied with a non-answer from Foreign Minister Tobias Billström because one did not want to create disagreement within the EU, as both you and the Moderaterna said during the meeting.

We, four other parties, meant that the important thing is not the disagreement but to work towards creating unity on the issue and to set them up. The Sweden Democrats were not part of that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Markus Wiechel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Once again - I do not see what it is that the member sees as a problem. I know that member Daniel Riazat did not attend the Foreign Affairs Committee's meeting before the EU Committee meeting where we worked to ensure that the government would receive a tougher wording. The wording was not as tough before the meeting in the EU Committee.

The fact is that it states clearly and distinctly - the member can read it themselves in the minutes - that the government shall work for the toughest possible measures against IRGC and that the conditions for creating a consensus on the terrorist classification of IRGC shall be investigated. It is a fact. That is what it says.

I want to ask the question again: Will Daniel Riazat sit in the chamber and vote yes when the Sweden Democrats' motion to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization reaches the Riksdag's table?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Riazat (V)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I want to mention pure facts. It is not we in this chamber who will decide on the terrorist classification of IRGC. It is the positions in the EU Committee and what the government will do at the EU level that decide that question.

To come up with empty words about that SD would have had proposals is just an attempt to escape the fact that they de facto did not back the push to classify IRGC as a terrorist organization in the EU committee when it actually surfaced. The first time it actually came up for a real decision was after we had complained about Josep Borrell, who is the EU's high representative for foreign affairs. Then the Sweden Democrats chose to set aside everything they had said and instead yield to the Moderates' and the government's line: that one must not do anything to create disagreement within the EU. That meant that IRGC would not be put on the terror list.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask the member not to come with platitudes from the rostrum.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! One of the moderate-led government's very first announcements in the foreign policy area, actually in all political areas, was to declare that it was indeed time to abolish feminist foreign policy.

It was not because evaluations had shown that it was ineffective or meaningless in the work for girls' and women's rights in the world. On the contrary, aid with a focus on equality increased, not least within SRHR, sexual and reproductive health and rights. In that regard, Sweden is one of the world's largest donors. A Swedish women's mediation network was created, which now makes important contributions in the world to strengthen women's role and active participation in peace processes and contributes to ensuring that women's perspectives, needs, and interests are realized.

Nor was it stated as a reason that the feminist foreign policy would not have inspired or influenced other countries in the development of their foreign policy. It is the opposite. Ask France, Spain, Canada, Germany, or any of the other countries that chose to follow in Sweden's footsteps and were inspired to also pursue a feminist foreign policy.

Hear and behold! Nor was the feminist foreign policy scrapped because girls' and women's rights in the world are on the march. It is the opposite. Equality and feminism have not gone too far in the world. It has gone rapidly backwards.

The Covid-19 pandemic threw global development back by several decades. Crises hit unequally and unfairly. And the pandemic has hit girls and women the hardest. There has been more gender-based violence and sexual violence. We see this particularly in conflicts. Fewer girls are able to go to school. The risk of child marriage has increased, and access to healthcare, especially maternal and obstetric care, has worsened. Human progress in these areas, which many people and brave movements have fought for over a long period, was undone in a short time.

The attacks from conservative right-wing forces in the world have simultaneously become increasingly harsher in terms of turning back the clock even further. We see this not least when it comes to just sexual and reproductive health and access to free and safe abortion. The developments in parts of the USA are a clear example. But we really do not need to look further south than Poland to see that women's right to abortion has been essentially abolished, or at least severely restricted.

No, neither a lack of need nor international influence were stated as reasons for the abolition of the feminist foreign policy. It was, according to the Moderate Foreign Minister, merely a label, which furthermore did not seem to be part of what constituted Swedish interests.

Mr. Speaker! When the then Minister for Foreign Affairs Margot Wallström and the Social Democratic-led government in 2014 took the lead and, as the first country in the world, introduced the feminist foreign policy, it signified an increase in ambition.

Sweden had for decades built up a very good reputation in the world when it comes to precisely equality, peace work, democracy, climate transition, and poverty reduction. But the feminist foreign policy placed girls' and women's rights higher up on the political agenda, and above all - regardless of what one thinks of it - it became an entire framework and way of working that permeated the Swedish foreign administration. It was a long-term strategic work with annual action plans to strengthen girls' and women's rights, resources, and representation.

It meant that it was established that equality was not a question alongside all other work to combat poverty and build peace and democracy, but that it should permeate our foreign policy. It also meant concretely that the UN Security Council, under Swedish leadership, adopted a resolution that includes sexual and gender-related violence as a reason to impose sanctions.

Giving girls and women power over their own lives and promoting their civic, political, economic, social and cultural interests is the best way to combat poverty and achieve economic growth and human development. It is also the fundamental insight into why a feminist foreign policy is necessary and that sustainable peace and common security can only be built through a focus on the rights of girls and women.

The feminist foreign policy was an elevation of ambition in the work for girls' and women's rights in the world. It was clearly perceived both within and outside Sweden's borders.

Why is it so important for the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats and their coalition partners to lower their ambitions now? How does it help the women in Iran, Ukraine or Afghanistan that the feminist foreign policy is abandoned?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share member Linnéa Wickman's view that foreign policy must contain concrete measures aimed at women and girls. It is extremely important.

We sit in the Riksdag's SRHR network together. There we also have the opportunity to discuss the issues a bit more deeply.

There are things I am turning to. I would like to get some answers from the member. Exactly what is feminist foreign policy? And what did the previous S-MP government implement during its eight years in government that yielded results? And what results did it give? Could the member provide some examples? I know that time is short.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Tolgfors, for the question! I will immediately pose a question in return.

It is the member's party, which is now ensuring the abolition of the feminist foreign policy, that needs to answer how one can work with equality. You are scrapping the action plans that are part of the feminist foreign policy, the annual action plans that have been worked on within the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and which have permeated the work in the world.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now I have asked a question, but I understand that no concrete answers or examples will be provided. I have demanded that here earlier.

I did note, however, that the Foreign Minister in the foreign policy declaration took up precisely the situation of women and girls and that it is also something that this government will work on. On the other hand, we have removed the label feminist foreign policy. There are many other measures that lead to the rights of girls and women being taken into account. This government will also work on that, so you do not need to worry about it.

However, I am still very curious about what the feminist foreign policy has concretely led to during your eight years in government.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is of course good that equality is mentioned in the foreign policy declaration. In my previous speech, I have given several examples of what the feminist foreign policy led to.

But Katarina Tolgfors' party must also answer: If it was just a label that was removed, why did you also scrap the action plans? You have worked long-term with this for nearly ten years. And why didn't you even wait for a larger evaluation? Why can we not now focus on how this policy could be sharpened instead of dismantling it? The world sees that Sweden is lowering its ambitions when it comes to girls' and women's rights.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Linnéa Wickman says grandly that feminist foreign policy is abolished. Yep! But we stand for women's rights. We stand up for women.

Let me read directly from the government's foreign policy declaration: "Sweden supports several equality initiatives and initiatives within SRHR. Among others in conflict areas where women are subjected to sexual violence, for exploitation in prostitution and for human trafficking. We have supported the establishment of centers in Ukraine and in neighboring countries where women in one and the same place can receive medical, legal and psychosocial support free of charge." This is a clear example of the policy that the Moderate-led government pursues.

What does Linnéa Wickman have against this? What is wrong with concrete measures so that women can have a better life and so that women suffering in a war can receive the help that is needed?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! I said earlier that it is good that equality is mentioned in the foreign policy declaration. But somewhere, the core issue in this – a question that many have also tried to get answers to during the debate – is: Is it any of the initiatives that the member mentions that would have been stopped by the feminist foreign policy? No one has opposed them. When it comes to Ukraine, there is on the contrary broad and strong support in the chamber of the Riksdag, not least when it comes to our support for the rights of girls and women there.

If there is no difference in policy when it comes to girls' and women's rights in the world, why was it so important to remove the label? Why was it a problem that we had a feminist foreign policy? This is something the Moderaterna and the government base have not managed to answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me continue reading from the government's foreign policy declaration: "That women are excluded from education, from working life, or in other ways are denied the right to participate in society, as is currently the case in, among other places, Afghanistan, is a violation of their human rights. This government will pursue a strategic equality work in aid and foreign policy." What does Member Linnéa Wickman have against this? What is wrong with this?

It is a large part of the foreign policy declaration that deals with women and women's rights. That the government which has won the election and gained the citizens' trust does not use the Social Democrats' rhetoric can surely not be a problem? It is what we do that counts.

I hope that Linnéa Wickman also sees that women's rights are important and must be taken seriously and supported.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, what matters is what is being done. And what is being done now is not just that the concept of feminist foreign policy is being scrapped, but the action plans in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs are also being scrapped. It is somewhere here that this is the core issue.

No one in this debate has managed to get an answer as to what the problem was with the designation "feminism". In what part of the world has feminism gone too far? It is commendable that the government mentions equality and, for example, speaks of an SRHR strategy. That is positive, but it is not enough when one sees a backlash for girls' and women's rights in the world. And it is not enough to discard a long-term and strategic work that has been a guiding star in the world without being able to answer the question why, other than by disparagingly calling it a label.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As a result of Russia's unjust war in Ukraine, many countries have turned against Russia. One could sometimes believe that the whole world has done so, but that is, of course, not true.

It is primarily countries within the Western cultural sphere that have most clearly marked themselves with sanctions and with support in the form of weapons and other things. In the rest of the world, there are a number of countries that actively support Russia and far more countries that simply remain indifferent to this horrific war. This applies in particular to countries in Africa, where the Russian Foreign Minister during the winter has been on a charm offensive and has been received with open arms. It is often the same countries that gladly accept aid from Sweden and other European countries.

Mr. Speaker! It is provoking that countries which year after year, decade after decade, receive aid from Sweden and the rest of Europe are not even prepared to help us by agreeing to our sanctions when our freedom and our security are threatened by the Russian barbarity.

The government has previously clarified that a greater focus shall be placed on our immediate neighborhood in foreign policy. It is a wise and reasonable prioritization. I definitely believe that countries that cannot support us in our fight against Russia should not receive any aid funds. It is more reasonable that these funds go toward rebuilding Ukraine again than that they end up in the pockets of Russian accomplices. Slava Ukraini!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Alm (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is very emotional to hold a foreign policy debate when Ukraine, a country in our European family and in our direct vicinity, is simultaneously literally fighting for its lives, for its country's preservation, and for all our freedom. We all stand here united in our condemnation of the aggressive war that Russia is waging against Ukraine.

Russia thought that their invasion of Ukraine would be quick, that the Ukrainians would give up immediately. Russia thought that the war would split the Western world, that we would give up Ukraine. Russia was wrong. Never have we in the West been so united, and we know now that unity is our strength.

In peacetime, it is often said that time is money. In war-torn Ukraine, time means something far more precious. Time is life.

It is gratifying that we have a Foreign Minister who states that no future support can be ruled out. Because more help is needed both now, urgently in the heat of battle, and in the long term for the reconstruction of a free and European Ukraine. Ukraine shall win peace. Russia shall lose the war.

Mr. Speaker! The extremely tense and critical security situation in our immediate vicinity shows that we need Nato. We need to show our weapons as a deterrent hard power when rulers like Putin go into a frenzy for conquests. But it is important not to forget the long lines, where soft power is also needed. Soft power is people's inner drive in the longing for freedom and independence. Through cooperation, openness, and free trade, the West can use the soft power's attractiveness to create peaceful community and democracy for more. Nothing is more frightening for authoritarian states like Russia, China, and Iran.

That fear is clearly shown in what is happening in our world right now. The people of Ukraine showed openly that they wanted to belong to the European community. That caused Putin to start this bloody war.

That Taiwan is successful, democratic, and independent in its way of life scares the communist party in China to the point of threats of invasion. The communists have historically shown their fear of losing power through horrific persecutions of dissenters.

The Iranian regime shows its fear by resorting to brutal violence when the women in Iran throw off their veils and openly show their longing for freedom.

But we must not be naive. Democracy, openness, and the principles of the rule of law need to be defended every single day. The proportion of the world's population living in democratic countries is only 6.2 percent, and that proportion is decreasing. We therefore need both hard and soft power.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is a hopeful light for the future. Trade, especially free trade, creates bonds between people and countries that largely contribute to both peace and prosperity.

We know that people are healthier and freer, that companies are more profitable and that societies are more open and democratic in countries where equality is high. And societies become more equal when women gain economic empowerment. But in almost all of the world's countries, women are in a serious economic disadvantage despite two-thirds of all work being performed by women – most of which is unpaid domestic work. Unequal laws and traditions worsen the situation. For example, women often alarmingly lack the right to own land and to inherit property. When our Swedish government now realigns foreign policy and links aid issues and trade issues more closely together, women's economic empowerment becomes an important issue.

That women and men should have the same educational opportunities and thus the same economic opportunities is a matter of rights, but it is also crucial for growth and sustainable development. Our own development is a telling example of this. The OECD estimates that the increase in the number of women in the labor market has contributed to 10-20 percent of the annual economic growth in Sweden and in the rest of the Nordic countries over the past 50 years.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's foreign policy - which strengthens women's economic empowerment, which works for more free trade and which connects aid issues and trade issues - will be able to give more people the opportunity for more freedom, more democracy and more stability.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! The situation in our world is very serious, and it is almost exactly one year since Russia's illegal war in Ukraine began. A peaceful country's inhabitants have had their lives shattered. Many are those who in this chamber and in many other places in our country have expressed their solidarity with those who have been affected by this unjust war.

Next week, some of us Swedish Members of Parliament are traveling to the OSCE's winter meeting in Vienna. Representatives from both Russia and Belarus will be present. In a context where the European security order is being broken down and in a situation where one country is illegally invading another, it feels uncomfortable to attend such a meeting with representatives from these states.

Russia's war is not the only human tragedy at present. In recent times, millions of people have been affected by the terrible earthquake that took place in Turkey and Syria. People who are very vulnerable are in our vicinity and in other parts of the world. In many countries, we have also seen over the past few years how the principles of the rule of law have been weakened. Authoritarian forces have been strengthened in several places in both democratic and non-democratic states. The independence of courts is questioned. Free media is challenged. Freedom of expression is restricted. And civil society is threatened. This has consequences for women, for ethnic and religious minorities, for LGBTQ people and for many others.

Mr. Speaker! Several Social Democratic colleagues of mine have today already spoken about Sweden's handling of the NATO application, about the abolition of the feminist foreign policy, and about the sharp reduction in aid that the right-wing government is now implementing. It is a policy that significantly lowers ambitions and which makes Sweden's voice in the world quieter, less important, and also less interesting.

In a time when needs are great, poverty is increasing, the climate issue is becoming more acute, and we see more war with more people fleeing, Sweden needs to instead be an active and clear role model. Human rights cannot only apply here at home or among our closest neighbors. Democracy and human rights must be part of a common global effort. International law, the principles of the rule of law, and every person's inviolable value must be respected regardless of whether you live in Sweden, in Ukraine, or in Palestine.

Mr. Speaker! In recent days, we have seen thousands of people demonstrating against the Israeli right-wing government's restrictions on the judiciary in the country. Furthermore, the settlements shall continue, Netanyahu proclaims, even though they are in conflict with international law. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been very clear when he warned Israel that continued settlements and demolitions of houses belonging to the Palestinians are a very serious threat to peace and the two-state solution that many of us have long waited for.

Between 2016 and 2021, Israel destroyed 673 buildings, some of which have been financed with Swedish tax funds, to a value of 13 million kronor. Both the International Criminal Court and the EU characterize the demolition of civilian buildings as war crimes.

As an occupying power, Israel has obligations towards the population in the areas that Israel occupies, and this should be noted internationally in every way.

Mr. Speaker! When I asked our Foreign Minister Tobias Billström this week about the Swedish position regarding the illegal Israeli settlements, I received a significantly more cautious answer than what the American Foreign Minister has stated. Foreign Minister Billström said that Sweden harmonizes its policy with the EU and chose not to use the word settlements. And it does not stop there, because by cutting up to half of the Swedish aid to Palestine, Sweden's right-wing government contributes to undermining the Palestinian civil society.

Unfortunately, the political will in the Middle East is also lacking that is required to achieve lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, where two states with secure and recognized borders can live side by side.

Illegal occupation of land can never be accepted, and I expect the Foreign Minister to be clearer in the future in his condemnations when states violate and do not follow international law. I also expect the Swedish government to be critical towards, for example, Israel or for that matter towards Morocco, which throughout 2023 has continued to hold Africa's last colony, Western Sahara, in a firm grip.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I want to say that I am proud to belong to a party and an internationalist political movement that sees the challenges we have to manage globally together. The way forward is a world free from oppression, where no one is free until everyone is free. We have a responsibility here and now, but we also have a responsibility for future generations. That responsibility we must take together.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Johan Büser mentioned OSCE's parliamentary assembly's winter meeting next week. It is a very uncomfortable gathering with Russians and Belarusians on site. But it is also an opportunity for us parliamentarians from 55 countries to express our support for Ukraine and hold Russia accountable without any doubt and without reservations. I hope that Johan Büser will also do this, because there must not be any doubt whatsoever or any form of division shown.

That is why I am glad that we in the Swedish Riksdag stand united when it comes to taking a stand for Ukraine. But we must also be clear so that Russia is not allowed to dominate the meeting. This is what all of us who support Ukraine shall do, and we shall hold Russia accountable.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Margareta Cederfelt, for the contribution!

I am, just as the member is pointing out, grateful for the cooperation we have in the Swedish OSCE delegation with a united view regarding the illegal war ongoing in Ukraine. There, both the Social Democrats and the Moderates have been in agreement from day one on how we act within the OSCE delegation and strongly condemn Russia's war but also the horrific atrocities that are now occurring against the Ukrainian population.

I am in favor of us traveling to this meeting. I regret that the Ukrainians may not be present, but we will, of course, take the opportunity to very clearly and firmly condemn Russia at this meeting. We shall do that together, and I look forward to that from that aspect.

What I meant is that it feels uncomfortable to go there and, on-site, meet representatives of the occupying power and those who wage war, when they violate and break apart the European security order.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Margareta Cederfelt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can agree with that, but here our responsibility as members of a parliament in a country that respects international law and the principles of the rule of law must stand firm and resolute for Ukraine. It is not all countries within the OSCE sphere that dare to express their support because of the advantage that Russia has over the countries through organizations such as CSTO, CIS, and the Eurasian Economic Union.

Here we from democracies and EU countries must take the lead. We must stick together and continue to do this regardless of party affiliation, because it concerns our neighboring country. It concerns the people who are suffering in Ukraine. They must not stand alone. Therefore, it is good that we have a common stance.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Johan Büser (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Margareta Cederfelt for another wise contribution.

We have acted together for Sweden's sake within the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Most recently last weekend, we were together at a meeting in Lithuania in the Nordic-Baltic circle, where we share a common view on Russia's illegal occupation. It is important that Sweden continues to push for this, and Member Margareta Cederfelt has also, in her role as President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, pushed these issues very strongly.

I admire her for her commitment to standing up for the principles of the rule of law within the OSCE. Let us push these issues for Sweden's sake and stand united together also moving forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Nima Gholam Ali Pour (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The freedom revolution in Iran against the mullahs' Islamist regime has focused attention on Iran in a way that forces more politicians and debaters to take a stand. It is no longer acceptable to speak of reforms within the Islamic Republic, as more and more have come to the realization that the mullahs' regime is and always has been a terrible apparatus of oppression.

The system of gender apartheid prevailing in Iran, where women are treated as second-class citizens, has existed since the mullahs came to power in 1979. Wearing the Muslim veil has been mandatory in Iran for all women by law since 1983.

What is new is that a young generation is turning its gaze towards the West and modern and free societies and feels that they have had enough of medieval barbarism. They have simply had enough of the society that the mullahs in Iran have constructed.

They have had enough of a society where people are mistreated by Islamists because they do not wear a veil or are not considered to follow other absurd Islamic laws.

They have had enough of a society where people constantly have to be afraid because one does not know when the regime's henchmen will appear to take one to a station where one is beaten until one is convinced to live a life that is compatible with the society that the Islamists want.

The oppression of the people has been right in front of our noses for decades. In the last decade, Iran has had the most executed executions per capita after the People's Republic of China. This is a regime that has no respect whatsoever for human life and has never had it. Still, Sweden and many other countries have waited until an uprising broke out before distancing themselves slightly from this regime.

This is a regime that since its founding has planned and carried out acts of terrorism around the world and spread war and chaos in the Middle East. Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen - the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is there and spreads death and misery in every possible way.

There is no reason whatsoever to meet with this regime in any way. They have shown what they want. They have shown their intentions. Based on their Islamist ideology, they hate the Western world, and Sweden is part of the Western world.

The regime of the mullahs has a robust security apparatus directed against its own population. Therefore, it will take longer before this revolution becomes successful. For that very reason, it is important that the Swedish and European support for the protests in Iran does not subside but remains even next year, the year after that, and as long as the Islamist regime in Iran remains.

The support for the protests in Iran must be made more concrete. The person responsible for the gross violations of human rights in Iran is Iran's dictator Ali Khamenei and the leadership of the Islamic Republic. These individuals must be subject to sanctions because of their crimes against human rights.

The regime of the mullahs has for decades enriched itself at the expense of the Iranian people. They have sent their children, relatives, and various supporters to Western countries such as Sweden. While freedom fighters are being murdered in Iran, the regime supporters live a life of luxury in the West. This must be stopped.

We know that the regime in Iran conducts espionage in Sweden. The regime's embassy as well as the mosques that the regime supports are involved in this activity. The Iranian regime's activity in Sweden must be limited and stopped completely. Tax funds must not go to mosques that have dealings with the regime of the mullahs. This is a dangerous regime, and its espionage activity risks the lives and health of Swedish citizens.

Mr. Speaker! Human rights and democracy are undermined when we accept that these rights and this governance are not for all people. The strength of human rights lies in the fact that they are universal. Sweden must support human rights and the struggle for democracy in Iran with greater force. There is no reason to hold back against this empire of evil whose hallmark is the oppression of women.

(Applause)

In this speech, Markus Wiechel (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John E Weinerhall (M)

Mr. Speaker! The world is a more restless place than it has been for a very long time. We live in a serious time. On our own continent, a full-scale war of aggression from Russia against Ukraine is raging. Our part of the world has not experienced a more uncertain time since the Second World War. At the same time as the war rages in Europe, dark clouds are also gathering in other parts of the world. Therefore, I would like to allow myself to take a more distant view today.

The world order that the world has grown accustomed to since the Cold War is being pushed to its limits as we now see, among other things, a Mainland China with clear power ambitions both economically and militarily. To meet the Chinese threat, a united and cohesive Europe is required, together in close cooperation with the United States. We need a strong transatlantic link, and it is crucial for maintaining the rules-based world order we rely on.

Both China, Europe, and Sweden have benefited from the trade and exchange that has grown large over the recent decades. This does not, however, give reason to be naive. It is clear that we have different interests, and investments must never compromise European and Swedish security interests.

Critical infrastructure and strategically important facilities and structures in our society must be protected from the interests of others. Many are the countries in Europe that have compromised on that principle. And also on other continents, not least in Africa, China has bought itself a large influence. It may turn out to be a costly lesson, Mr. Speaker.

A China that is on the offensive requires everyone's vigilance. The Chinese actions in the South China Sea, with its claims to virtually the entire subsea and its annexations of island groups, cause great concern. Beijing's nine-dash line lacks a legal basis and encroaches on the neighboring countries' territorial waters. Added to this are also China's pressures and recurring threats against Taiwan. The passages in the South China Sea are extremely important for world trade because half of the world's boat cargo passes there. Furthermore, it is estimated that there are large natural resources in the form of oil and gas in the area. There are thus both major economic and security policy aspects that play a role in the region.

Mr. Speaker! The European Union and China need each other for trade and growth. At the same time, it is important that the relationship is characterized by the security considerations that are necessary for our security. Trade must also be characterized by a mutual respect for compliance with rules, such as the World Trade Organization's framework. Here, the transatlantic cooperation is also extremely important, and it would be desirable for the EU and the United States to go hand in hand. In a trade policy game with trade wars characterized by an occasionally protectionist orientation, there are ultimately only losers. It does not make us or anyone else richer.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a long history as a free-trade-friendly country. It is through trade and cooperation that we create both prosperity and deeper relations with other countries. But Sweden also has a long tradition of working for and highlighting human rights. Here, it is important that Sweden continues to be a clear voice and that we collectively in the EU and with the United States put pressure on other countries while we trade with each other and cooperate in areas such as the environment and climate. But we must never tolerate violations of human rights.

It concerns, among other things, minorities such as the Tibetans with their situation in non-autonomous Tibet or the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. But it is not only ethnic minorities that are severely affected by cultural and religious persecution, but it also applies largely in China. Political freedom is almost completely curtailed and freedom of the press abolished, and cultural censorship is very extensive. The imprisoned Swedish citizen, the author and publisher Gui Minhai is just one example of this.

Mr. Speaker! In this debate, I want to remind that the Swedish commitment to an order where right prevails over power must continue both in our immediate vicinity and across the entire world - not least in China.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Weinerhall for raising the question of the relationship with China and for taking a more distant view than so far in the debate when we have naturally focused on Ukraine and the surrounding area. That is good.

I also want to point out that even though a debate always contains conflict and disagreement, we agree on some things in our committee. During the previous mandate period, for example, we jointly developed a China Strategy. We worked hard and for a long time so that we could reach an agreement on the text. There are no reservations, and we speak with one voice towards China. That is extremely important.

I would like to, therefore, praise Member Weinerhall, but I also want to ask if he sees any problem with Sweden now pursuing a more regional, provincial foreign policy. Is there not then a risk that one loses focus on the major global challenges, for example the relationship with China?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John E Weinerhall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Olle Thorell for the question and for the opportunity to discuss the issues even more deeply.

As a member myself, I was of the opinion that these issues were somewhat absent in this debate. I see no contradiction in focusing here and now on the serious security policy situation that Sweden finds itself in with Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

It is natural in a situation where a war of aggression is taking place and the most serious situation on our continent since the Second World War, that this occupies our focus. I hope that we can keep two thoughts in mind at the same time - not just two thoughts but many thoughts. Our world around us is very uneasy right now, and this applies partly on our continent, and partly in many other places.

I hope and believe that we can hold several thoughts in our heads at the same time, and I look forward to continuing to maintain the unity that for a long time has characterized Swedish foreign policy over many decades. I also hope that we can agree in the future on these issues as well.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Mr. Speaker! Despite the unity, there are still difficulties regarding China's place in the world, which can also be looked at. For example, Sweden is reducing aid to Burma/Myanmar by 60 percent. The Minister for Development Cooperation calls it a slight cut; we think it is a huge cut. And it has consequences for the democracy movement.

Myanmar needs the world's support. If it disappears, actors from another country will fill that vacuum. China and Russia, in particular, are standing in line to be involved and exert influence in countries where Sweden, the EU, and Western countries are withdrawing. What is Member Weinerhall's view on Sweden making such radical cuts in aid to strategically important countries like Myanmar, where China is allowed to take more space?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

John E Weinerhall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I would want to claim that we are scaling down a commitment.

I assume that Olle Thorell is just as aware as I am that just over a year ago, a takeover by the military junta occurred in Burma. It is clear that when such a thing happens, it hinders the possibility of working on the ground. If I am not mistaken—the member may correct me if I am wrong—was it not the case that Sida already last year reduced the appropriations to organizations in Burma precisely for the reason that it has become more difficult to operate on the ground given the political situation and the violent situation prevailing, where a regime oppresses the population and has made it much more difficult for both civil society organizations and other organizations to operate in the country.

I am therefore not sure that we would even, if it were possible, want to have the same level of commitment remaining on site as we previously had.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Azra Muranovic (S)

Mr. Speaker! As others have said, we live in a time where very much is happening in our world at the same time.

I want to first mention the earthquake in Turkey and Syria, an incredibly devastating natural disaster that has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Several are still being dug out from the ruins. Here, Sweden must respond both in the short term and the long term to mitigate the long-lasting consequences of the earthquake.

But I want to talk about Ukraine, Madam Speaker, because in nine days it will be a full year since Russia's illegitimate and unprovoked war in Ukraine began and the whole world was shaken.

Putin's warfare takes us back to a time of siege warfare, where civil rights do not exist at all. In Putin's war, there is a complete lack of respect for international law, human rights, the UN Charter, and the democratic foundation of values.

I believe that many of us will never forget the morning of February 24, 2022. It is a date that many Europeans have etched into their memory. Likewise, we will remember that we followed in real-time what was happening on the ground in Ukraine and that we saw with our own eyes what Russia did in Ukraine. We saw dead people lying on the streets. We saw civilian cars that had been bombed and were on fire. We saw civilian homes and hospitals in ruins, and we saw how medical personnel were fired upon.

The Ukrainians have had to learn that freedom and independence cannot be taken for granted. It is something that I think we others have also had to learn. But we have also had to learn that Ukraine's war is our concern. Ukraine must not fall. We cannot let Ukraine fall.

A cohesive EU is therefore crucial. I think it is good that we have welcomed new candidate countries into this.

For us Social Democrats, it is gratifying that the current right-conservative government has continued in the same path that the Social Democrat-led government charted and reacted lightning-fast by sending humanitarian, military and economic support. But the support for Ukraine must not stall. We must not become exhausted. Sweden and the EU must be persistent in their support but also during the reconstruction period.

As I mentioned earlier, Russia's illegitimate invasion of Ukraine means that the laws of war are not being respected, and in Putin's war, women and children are particularly vulnerable.

Children are kidnapped to Russia, indoctrinated, and converted into loyal Russian sympathizers who glorify Russian soldiers and the Russian warfare.

More and more cases of Russian soldiers' rapes are being revealed in Ukraine, and more and more testimonies are being collected. Often it is women and girls who have not had the opportunity to flee who become victims of various types of sexual violence. Some women become pregnant, and the possibilities for abortion are incredibly small right now.

Not since the wars in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone in the 90s have we seen this type of systematic sexual violence where women's sexuality is violated so that their nation, in turn, shall be violated. It is clear exercise of power in a patriarchal world to bring Ukraine under its control. It is about terror. It is about humiliation, forced submission, and degradation. And it is evident that it concerns deliberate war crimes. We know that when women are broken down, entire societies are weakened, and populations exposed to war find it harder to survive. When children are attacked, generations in a society are affected.

Madam Speaker! That this government chooses to scrap two of the major Swedish development and foreign policy profile areas, aid and feminist foreign policy, benefits neither Sweden, the EU nor the rest of the world – on the contrary. It is good with acute and short-term interventions here and now, but a long-term strategy is also required for how we work with these issues, which will affect generations to come.

It feels devastating, therefore, that Sweden is moving away from the feminist foreign policy at a stage where women's and girls' rights in the world are taking a heavy blow. Sweden has been a leader in this work and succeeded in getting other countries to work from a rights, resource, and representation perspective to strengthen the living conditions of women and girls. Now that struggle is stalling.

It does not help to have three [clauses] on equality written in the foreign policy declaration. There is no one in here who is against equality. What we are against is that there is a lack of a visible strategy that handles the issues in a short-term perspective and a long-term perspective. It is necessary to have a developed strategy, and I repeat that it is missing. It is a betrayal of equality. It is a betrayal of Sweden, and it is a betrayal of the rest of the world.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Lönn (SD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to Swedish foreign policy, we must never forget the trade perspective. In what way Sweden stands with and against the rest of the world is central and important for the country's position internationally.

Sweden has for a long time remained competitively strong against the rest of the EU. Likewise, the EU has done so against the rest of the world. We do, however, see signs that both Swedish and European competitiveness may be set to decrease.

Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, IRA, could become fateful for both Sweden and the rest of the EU. In connection with the large-scale industrialization of northern Sweden, the threat from the other side of the Atlantic is now arriving.

Now, requirements are being made at the EU level to match this type of state aid, which would be completely the wrong way to go. What has historically given the EU competitiveness has been built on free competition and free trade within the internal market.

If the Commission gets what it wants, there is a great risk that we will see investments based on ideological conviction that result in enormous green fiascos similar to the political initiatives we have seen previously nationally. In the end, the losers are always the citizens, as it is their tax money that is wasted.

In practice, EU-funded state aid can force Swedish taxpayers to finance the strengthened competitiveness of foreign companies. This is while Swedish companies are not allowed to take part in the same benefits. We would thus, in practice, be paying to worsen the conditions for our domestic companies.

I am pleased that the government, through Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, stated yesterday that it intends to safeguard the integrity of the internal market, that the government intends to work for a strict state aid framework that cannot be exploited, and finally that the Commission is tasked with taking extra consideration for small and medium-sized enterprises with this temporary support.

I am also pleased that the government has taken the Sweden Democrats' concern seriously and is working to ensure that the EU-funded state aid is taken from existing funds and that no new funds are injected. This proposal is, however, far from being finalized, and much can happen during the coming period. We do not yet know how all member states stand regarding new additions of funds to finance the state aid. We also know historically, primarily through the corona fund, that member states tend to falter in issues depending on what they are offered in return. It can therefore not be stated at all that the government intends to maintain the same position in the future if they are offered other benefits within the union.

The proposal can therefore, in its final stage, distort the internal market if one chooses to add new funds to the state aid, which, in other words, cannot be ruled out at all. I therefore view with great skepticism what the Commission is now tasked to implement, and my concern regarding the result of these decisions remains.

Finally, Swedish foreign policy must stem from a Swedish perspective, where we put our interests first and do not allow the EU to invest Swedish tax money for the growth of foreign companies so that we in this way hinder our domestic companies.

Swedish trade policy on an international level should always be implemented with sober consequence analyses, and what is now on the table at the EU is rather a panic measure due to the IRA. My hope is, in any case, that the government takes our views regarding countermeasures due to the IRA into account in the future work during the Swedish presidency of the Council of Ministers.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! In my speech here today, I would like to take the opportunity to speak about Sweden's foreign policy in the long perspective. When it comes to the foreign policy for the coming years, I fully agree with what has been presented by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the foreign policy declaration. In the short term, the most important tasks are to help Ukraine win the war, ensure that Sweden and Finland join the defense alliance Nato, and arm our own defense forces. But what happens when this is done?

If it happens as we want, Ukraine wins back all the territory that has been lost since the occupation of Crimea. However, that means that Russia will also stand as the great loser. What will our relationship with our large neighboring country be like then?

Unfortunately, most things speak for the fact that the Putin regime will survive. As far as we know, there is no internal split within the regime. Opposition leaders such as Alexei Navalny are locked up, and no one dares to organize spontaneous demonstrations. But in addition to that, we unfortunately must expect that the regime will also become bitter and revanchist. It is already that today, and it will hardly be any better after a defeat in the war against Ukraine.

From a military perspective, the threat from Russia should be largely neutralized when Finland and Sweden join Nato, as the last gap in the common defense of Northern Europe is thereby closed. But we know from many examples in history, not least last year's invasion of Ukraine, that decisions to go to war do not always result from rational considerations.

What will also happen when we finally have peace in Europe again is that the focus will shift to the Pacific. It is no news that China is growing in economic and military strength, and it would not be a problem if it were not for the fact that the country is constantly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Most likely, the communist dictatorship will claim to dominate its surroundings. It will say that it has a right to a sphere of influence and that smaller states in its vicinity must do as they are told.

Will Russia join forces with China now that the Western countries are cutting all ties? We do not know that, but Russia has gas and oil that China needs.

How should Sweden navigate this future? I believe we must go back to the time of the end of the Second World War and ask ourselves how people thought then. To secure peace and stability, the UN was created to establish a rules-based world order where conflict resolution by force is prohibited, in combination with the Western powers uniting and forming the defense alliance Nato. The Western powers also rearmed militarily, not least with nuclear weapons, to emphasize that war should not be able to pay off.

What does this mean for us today? In short, it is about Sweden, within the framework of the EU and Nato where we have our closest friends, should push to create cohesion not only within Europe but also with our friends on the other side of the planet. It does not always come naturally to us in Europe to think that we also need to defend freedom out in the Pacific. It may be perceived as something foreign that the Swedish navy should be involved in patrolling the Taiwan Strait, but I believe everyone understands what I mean. If that is where the line between freedom and oppression lies, that is where we need to be if we want to contribute to the collective defense of freedom in the world.

Madam Speaker! During the coming years, as many speakers today have already pointed out, it is a priority task to ensure that Sweden is safe and that the war in Ukraine reaches a happy end. But there will come a time after that. We will live as neighbors to a Russia ruled by a bitter dictator, and we know that the Chinese Communist Party is forging plans to increase its power. We shall therefore not believe that we are heading towards a future where there is peace and harmony, but we are likely heading towards a new cold war.

The end of the war in Ukraine will be like a new 1945. It will be the starting point for a new era in world politics. Let us therefore do as the Western powers did in 1945, but this time not only for Europe's security but also in support of the democracies on the other side of the globe. The struggle for freedom in the world can only be won if the democracies are stronger than the dictatorships in everything—economically, militarily, and morally.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! As Foreign Minister Tobias Billström clarified in the government's foreign policy declaration, the Swedish government will implement a clear shift in Swedish foreign policy, and an important part of this is to review and reform Swedish aid.

Since the 1970s, Sweden has had the so-called one percent goal as a guideline, meaning that the state allocates 1 percent of Sweden's GNI, gross national income, to aid. In the 90s, this accelerated, and the aid was at approximately the same level as the Swedish defense expenditures. These have, however, increased recently, for obvious reasons.

A focus on disbursement and a fixation on that has meant that parameters such as target steering, quality, and results have been overshadowed. Approximately 60 percent of Swedish aid, corresponding to 30 billion, goes to multilateral organizations, such as the UN and the World Bank. It goes without saying that with so many tax funds, we must have clearer steering, better follow-up, and much better transparency.

According to the OECD, Sweden was at 1.14 percent of GNI during the pandemic, followed by Norway at 1.11 percent. When we now transition the aid and reduce it slightly, we are therefore actually doing so from a high level. Sweden is and remains one of the largest donors in the world.

The world is changing and so are the global challenges. The need for support and development is great, and precisely because of that, it is so important that we have control and follow-up and see where these tax dollars are going. Do the money and the support reach where they are truly needed? One does not know unless one has transparency, a clear follow-up, and a clear result goal.

We Moderates believe, like the government, that we need to redirect aid with a greater emphasis on trade and development so that aid can yield more sustainable results and so that countries can gain leverage to lift themselves out of poverty. We want to move from aid to trade. This also implies a model where one obtains economic predictability and better opportunities for planning. Over a three-year period, we are allocating aid at the level of 56 billion. That is a very large amount of money.

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall continue to be a strong and active actor when it comes to taking responsibility outside Sweden's borders and promoting development and trade so that more people can lift themselves out of poverty by their own power, strengthen their democracy and create equality. I am very pleased that the Foreign Minister in the foreign policy declaration just emphasized the strengthening of girls' and women's rights. That is something we completely agree on. But we have been asked from the rostrum today why this government is abandoning feminist foreign policy. We are not abandoning the goal and the ambition to strengthen girls' and women's rights, but we were not elected to take over the Social Democrats' action plans in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

There are many competent, knowledgeable and committed people working and operating within the aid system - in agencies such as Sida, Red Cross, Act Svenska kyrkan, Rädda Barnen and Ankarstiftelsen, to name a few - and there are many smaller civil society organizations that do very important and significant work. But together we can also do even better. That is why it is so important that we have control and follow-up of the money and the tax funds that we allocate so that people all around the world can have a better life and that we know where that money actually goes. One can increase and allocate 2 percent of bni, but that is not a measure of whether the money actually reaches its destination and that we get quality and results.

Madam Speaker! For us politicians, it is our responsibility to ensure that every tax krona achieves the best possible effect and ends up where the need is greatest. Various audits and reports from the Swedish National Audit Office and EBA, the Expert Group for Aid Analysis, show that there is very much where we must gain better control over how the money and resources are used and what results they contribute to.

With that said: Sweden shall continue to support and be a strong voice in the world and contribute to helping where we can. We have shown this, for example, most recently in the horrific earthquake disaster that struck parts of Turkey and Syria. We have shown it in our support for Ukraine, which shall be both here and now and in the long term.

We will use our presidency in the EU to also continue to ensure that the EU expands its global footprint in the rest of the world. Together we are stronger and can achieve more. It is in Sweden's interest.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! In the coming days, the military junta in Burma/Myanmar celebrates two years since the takeover. The oppression has never been worse. The democracy movement, which is vibrant, and the civil society that exists there, inside the country or in exile, are fighting desperately against the oppression. A civil war has broken out, and China's and Russia's influence is increasing ever more. At the same time, the Swedish government is now cutting aid to Burma/Myanmar by 60 percent - without any impact assessment, without a discussion with those who carry out the aid, without even a so-called do-no-harm analysis before proceeding with this massive cut that the Minister for Development Cooperation calls cutting a little bit.

How does the member justify this massive cut in aid to Burma/Myanmar?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! The Member of Parliament asks a question about Burma and the government and suggests that I, as a Member of Parliament, should justify it. What we have said and explained quite clearly here today is that we are cutting back on aid in total. One must prioritize – it is exactly like with the household budget at home.

It is clearly a serious situation in Burma. I have not personally seen any analysis of exactly what consequences it has had, that is quite correct, but I assume that those who have to handle this are looking at it and have made those analyses.

We are reviewing the entire aid and which initiatives are to be made, but the exact plan for each country I cannot account for here.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Olle Thorell (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand that not all members can be well-versed in all issues and all countries. The problem is that there is no one from the government side or any official who can answer which impact assessments have been made and which expert opinions have been gathered before one steps forward like an elephant in a china shop and makes massive cuts to aid to countries such as Burma/Myanmar, Guatemala, Palestine or others.

The problem is not that Katarina Tolgfors cannot answer the question. The problem is that the government says that one should have a new reform agenda for aid but implements all the reforms before the agenda has been set and before the impact analysis has been conducted. That is what we consider to be the problem.

I want to conclude by saying that I appreciate Katarina Tolgfors' commitment to aid. I also want to say that there is no conflict between effective aid and the one percent goal. Everyone here is for effective aid.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Katarina Tolgfors (M)

Madam Speaker! I know that aid issues are close to the members' hearts, and they are also for my part.

As has been said earlier today, one would of course want to be able to help all countries and disaster areas around the world. That is not possible. We must prioritize. I would like to pose a question back to the member. If it were the case that you disposed of an aid budget that you have presented as a shadow budget where you also cut in the aid – how would your prioritization then look and what would you do for Burma? I know you cannot answer now, but I look forward to a continued debate in other forums.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gustaf Göthberg (M)

Madam Speaker! The birds fell silent in the spring. This is how refugees who have come to Sweden from Ukraine have described how it actually happened in Kyiv and Mykolaiv and a number of Ukrainian cities and villages, in the light of the Russian war of invasion. When the Russian forces rumbled in, everyday life disappeared into chaos and darkness. The birds fell silent in the Ukrainian spring.

While they have fallen silent, the sound of bombs has become part of the Ukrainian people's everyday life, and so have the Russian war crimes. Reports arrive of people fleeing, people captured by the Russian army, mercenaries, cities being bombed, women subjected to sexual violence, and parents losing children.

In this darkness, the Ukrainian resilience has given hope. They have received support. Sweden shall continue to deliver support in the European Union and alone.

Madam Speaker! The insights into Russian power ambitions should have come earlier. The understanding of the vulnerable Swedish geopolitical situation and the importance of us cooperating more closely with allies and building security together was blocked in the Swedish debate for decades by the Social Democrats.

Madam Speaker! It is today a year since Foreign Minister Ann Linde announced the Social Democratic government's final foreign policy declaration. Nine days before the bombs fell over Kyiv, she unilaterally sharpened the Swedish security policy line when she, for the first time in a foreign policy declaration, stated that Sweden did not intend to apply for membership in Nato.

This was something new, but it also follows a social democratic tradition. In this chamber's rostrum stood Olof Palme in the 80s and called Swedish support for the Baltics a crusade mentality, and the country had a social democratic foreign minister who, on the ground in the Baltics, said that the Baltics were not occupied. This was the social democratic stance, until suddenly it was no longer.

As you know, you opposed Swedish membership in the European Union and blocked every discussion on deepened European cooperation, until you suddenly turned also in that issue. So it continues. I nevertheless want to welcome yet another Social Democratic turn in foreign policy, for these have always served Sweden well.

Nothing is more important than Sweden soon becoming a member of Nato. The responsibility now falls on us in this chamber to steer it into port, not in an escalated party-political tone for the purpose of scoring points, but in a spirit of consensus.

Madam Speaker! The triumph of democracy did not reach Belarus or Russia when Central and Eastern Europe became free during the 1990s. In what has been called Europe's last dictatorship, the risk is brewing today that it could be followed by others when Vladimir Putin wants to incorporate free democracies into his authoritarian sphere of interest. Sweden's support for the democracy movement in Belarus - just as in Russia - shall continue with undiminished force. It is our historical duty towards the future.

Madam Speaker! Not far from here lies Vilnius. It is there that the Lithuanian government has its seat, but it is also where the Belarusian democracy movement is based. Russian dissidents operate from there, and from there, support for Taiwan shines brightly. They serve as an example in our European family, and it is precisely through closer cooperation with our Nordic and Baltic friends that Swedish foreign policy is now being recalibrated.

It is not about turning away from the world, but rather about trying to change and improve our part of it. There is no lack of challenges in this area.

Firstly, we have the obvious fact that Ukraine must win the war. Sweden shall do everything in its power to ensure that this happens. Yesterday, EU Minister Jessika Roswall announced that Sweden, within the framework of its presidency of the European Union, will work to use frozen Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine. Parallel to this, Sweden should, of course, intensify and expand efforts to establish an international tribunal that can dispense justice.

Secondly, support for a more active European neighborhood policy must continue. Sweden and the EU shall continue to support Moldova and Ukraine in their applications for membership in the EU.

Thirdly, there must be more sanctions against Russia and Belarus and against the political leadership and personnel on the ground in the countries who show the face of violence.

Madam Speaker! The government's Belarus policy is interesting because it is in place, unlike the previous government's. I want to remind that Margot Wallström was the first Foreign Minister since the 1990s who, in this chamber, did not mention the then-Belarus or Belarus at all in the government's foreign policy declaration. It is a bit of a different tune with this government.

Madam Speaker! Foreign policy is our country's most important instrument for ensuring our freedom and our democracy. On a day like this, when solemn speeches have succeeded one another for hours in this chamber, we are reminded of what is at stake. Beyond the speeches and the words and that which has been said from the rostrum, it is about very practical matters, such as life and death, freedom and oppression, and light and darkness. Let us remind ourselves of this and our common responsibility for Sweden's place in the world.

The foreign policy declaration that the Foreign Minister delivered today marks out a new direction for Swedish foreign policy. With our NATO membership, we are given opportunities to build a more peaceful and freer world, or as the worker-author Ragnar Thours wrote in some rewritten words in the poem Sundbybergsprologen: A world open we build together. Its light strikes against the loneliness of space and, I hope, against the bottomless evil that is currently operating in the Kremlin.

My hope and my faith, Madam Speaker, is that Swedish foreign policy in the future shall be a particularly active force in the work for this. I believe that we can all take a joint responsibility for this.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm, Jesper Skalberg Karlsson and John E Weinerhall (all M) as well as Magnus Jacobsson (KD) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jesper Skalberg Karlsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The new Moderate-led government has announced that in foreign policy, special emphasis will be placed on the situation in our immediate vicinity and the cooperation body EU. It is a sharp contrast to the previous government, which put great effort and toil into a campaign to obtain a seat in the Security Council – a campaign where aid money was used to grease foreign dignitaries, a campaign to get a seat in an increasingly paralyzed organization.

I am glad that the course has been changed, because it stands beyond all reasonable doubt that it is now time to put Sweden first. With war in Europe, great economic uncertainty, and doubts regarding the Western world's ability to withstand external forces that wish us ill, it is urgent to rethink. Here and now is the time for Swedish self-confidence and European agency. If not now, when?

Madam Speaker! Sweden, with its long coast, from Haparanda to Strömstad, is one of the countries in Europe with the longest coastline, a full 240 miles. We have therefore, over the years, taken a special responsibility for the Baltic Sea. In many respects, it is the Moderaterna who have pushed for this, not least in the environmental area.

Under the previous Moderate-led government, great efforts were made regarding Ospar, Helcom and the Baltic Sea Action Plan to improve the marine environment in the Baltic Sea. A Sidaprojekt was also started to update treatment plants in other Baltic Sea countries, which would reduce the eutrophication in the sea by an amount equivalent to an entire Sweden's emissions. Much was done, but more can certainly continue to be done.

Madam Speaker! It is precisely the Baltic Sea that I want to focus on in my speech, for in the middle of the Baltic Sea, which has its own security policy context, lies Gotland. It is an island that is not only my home but also a historical focal point for military conflicts in the Baltic Sea area.

The Peace of Brömsebro 1645 and the Russian landing on Gotland 1808 may seem like outdated references to our visitors in the stands. But Gotland remains where it has always been, 25 miles from Kaliningrad and 70 miles from Ukraine. If Sweden is to do its duty and claim its right in the Baltic Sea region, the Armed Forces need a permanent presence on the island, for our and the Baltic Sea region's security.

Gotland is situated in such a way that an attacker who wants to dominate the Baltic Sea must first occupy Gotland, in order to then be able to operate against the mainland. It was a Social Democratic mistake in 2004 to decide to decommission Gotland's regiment. For as little as 40 million kronor, the entire regimental area was sold. When Fortifikationsverket in 2017 constructed a new deployment as a result of the re-established presence, it cost 780 million kronor. A modernization had, of course, been needed regardless of the previous decision, but this testifies to the fact that shortsightedness in security policy leads not only to poorer security but also to very large costs.

Madam Speaker! That the Armed Forces have a permanent presence on Gotland contributes to stability in the Baltic Sea region. This is needed, not least with Russian gas pipelines in our vicinity. Soon Sweden will be a full member of Nato and will then leave a period of non-alignment behind. We build security together with others and strengthen our operational capability through cooperation.

It is important for Sweden and the entire Baltic Sea region that we have a significant capability at certain central locations to protect ourselves against attacks and crises. We need to protect Stockholm because it is our densely populated capital and the location of the central state leadership. We need to protect Gothenburg because the port of Gothenburg is Scandinavia's largest port in terms of trade volume and is crucial for supplying Oslo, Copenhagen, and Stockholm. And we need to protect Gotland because the island is the lock of the Baltic Sea and the natural first step for an attacker who wants to dominate our inland sea.

Madam Speaker! Let me finally say that Swedish security and what I have mentioned regarding the Armed Forces is fundamentally about us in Sweden needing to defend our right to live the lives we want to live. We do not have any irrational imperial dreams. We are a small and open economy, and we are a liberal democracy with a strong welfare state. To make our voice heard, both in the Baltic Sea and in other places, we need partners and friends.

In foreign policy, it would not be foreign to me if Sweden took steps to coordinate and formalize more collaborations with our neighboring countries, not least the Baltics. The Nordic Council and Nordic-Baltic Eight could, in the long run, have joint meetings to secure their interests in the Nordic region and in the Baltic Sea region. Such a collaboration, I believe, could make a big difference, for example, ahead of the meetings of the Council of Europe. And of course, such a new organization could have its seat in a place that is the hub for Baltic Sea trade and which has made us and others richer for centuries, namely in Visby.

(Applause)

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The first time I was in Ukraine was in 2000 or 2002, shortly before the Orange Revolution, when I was a youth politician and was there and spoke about Swedish democracy, Swedish local self-government and the freedom that we have. I spoke with young Ukrainians who dreamed of something else, who dreamed of leaving the old and entering into something new.

One of the friends I got to know then, I have followed throughout his entire journey as a politician in Ukraine. He called once a number of years ago and told me that he was afraid. It was 2014 when there were large demonstrations at Maidan Square. He said that he felt there was a risk of ending up in a civil war and that help had to be obtained.

I had the privilege of being there for an entire week during the events at Majdantorget. I stood at Hotel Ukraine and looked out over the crowd on a Sunday. It was 1 million demonstrators protesting for peace and freedom. And in Sweden, it was described as a Nazi revolution. I was deeply upset when I came home.

During this period of conflict, I have managed to be in Ukraine four times. I was there about ten days before the escalation occurred. This has led me to argue constantly that Ukraine needs two things. They need economic support, and they need military support.

I have been so grateful that this Riksdag has been able to make the decisions it has made. It is necessary for Ukraine to safeguard its peace and freedom. I also believe that Sweden, the EU, the USA and many others need to go further. Ukraine will need to have heavier weapons. They will need aircraft and main battle tanks. And I hope that we in Europe step up for the sake of freedom.

It has been a pleasure for me to sit in the chamber and listen to everyone who has highlighted Ukraine in the debate. When one has friends there who are at the front, this support is important, and it is important that just Sweden is so united. We are the country that, proportionally, has the largest public opinion supporting Ukraine's right to peace and freedom.

I also want to briefly mention Belarus. I have friends from there as well. Looking at what has happened purely militarily, Russia has not succeeded in getting Belarus to act in the way that Russia wants. I personally believe that it is because there is no popular support for a war in Belarus.

Therefore, we in Sweden and the EU must help in different ways and support the Belarusian people against the dictatorship they have, so that the people in Belarus will also get the peace and freedom that Ukraine is fighting for.

Do I feel any anxiety in this? One always feels anxiety when there is war. But I actually feel an additional anxiety that I may have missed a little bit during the debate, and it concerns the Balkans. Throughout the entire conflict phase that has now occurred, it is completely obvious that Russia has acted to create further conflicts. They have acted to try to create a contagion. We saw it in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and we have seen it on the border between Serbia and Kosovo. I have felt a very great anxiety that there could be further escalation. Furthermore, we see it in Moldova right now.

What is exciting to note over the last few months is that the Serbian rhetoric is actually starting to shift. Certain things have been toned down. They have signaled a much more positive attitude towards Ukraine, which I hope will lead to a change over time.

I believe it is important that we in Sweden and in the EU continue to work with the Balkans. We see that positive things are happening. For example, Kosovo will soon celebrate 15 years as a free country, and they will now receive visa-free travel. We see that the negotiations with the EU are moving forward. A secure Balkans reduces the risk of further wars in Europe. And I hope that we in this Riksdag can continue to safeguard freedom and democracy.

(Applause)

The foreign policy debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)